0VTLINC5-®'"- 

[0Vl5-f=^-p05Tb 

-LECTl/KeS- 


^'S■^ 


^>^T^":^.N?;^'^ 


UC-NRLF 


B    3    HE    DES 


:^l 


WITM- 


L^^Sn^u 


ILLVSTRAf iVE- NOTES  • 

•4^- CHARTS-' 


Sterling  PublisWng  Co. 


NE^;V  YORK 


-«»<nj;<»«?ni«. 


OF  THK 

University  of  California. 


/fnjL  ayLAyrn^ 


Received       JH-Cti^  .  iScx) 

^Ac cessions,  No .  Sffff  ■  ^    Class  No . 


^.  I 


{/(  i  i-   /4.-^it^*-»^ 


X  ^ 


A    . 


LOUIS  F.  POST'S   LECTURES. 


TESTIMONIALS  FROM  EDUCATIONAL  INSTITUTIONS. 

'•  I  doubt  if  the  school  ever  enjoyed  any  lectures  on  political  economy  as  much  as  yours, 
because  you  presented  the  subject  with  such  simplicity  and  clearness  that  even  the  most  imma- 
ture minds  could  follow  it." — Sara  M.  Ely,  of  The  Misses  Ely's  School,  Riverside  Drive, 
Eighty-fifth  and  Eighty-sixth  Streets,  Neiv  York. 

"  It  is  the  unanimous  verdict  of  the  most  competent  judges,  that  this  lecture  of  Mr.  Post's 
is  not  only  the  best  which  has  so  far  been  delivered,  but  shows  extraordinary'  power  of  clear 
and  instructive  exposition  of  his  theory  and  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  economics.  He 
impressed  every  intelligent  person  with  the  conviction  that  he  was  a  very  remarkable  teacher." 
—J.  A.  Quarles,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy,  Washington  a  fid  Lee  Uni- 
versity, Lexington,  I 'a. 

"  I  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  in  the  chapel  of  Washington  and  Lee  University  the 
lecture  of  Mr.  Post  on  single  tax.  I  was  greatly  impressed  by  the  ability  of  the  lecturer,  and 
thought  that  I  had  never  heard  a  more  simple,  full,  and  clear  exposition  of  the  principles  of  the 
science  upon  which  the  deductions  of  the  lecturer  were  based.  Mr.  Post  has  most  admirable 
and  exceptional  gifts  as  a  lecturer  and  a  teacher." — Gen.  Scott  Shipp,  Superititendent  Vir- 
ginia Military  Institute,  Lexington,  Va. 

"  Mr.  Post's  lecture  in  City  Hall  last  evening  on  '  Progress  and  Poverty '  demonstrated 
that  the  elementary  truths  of  political  economy  can  be  presented  to  an  audience  in  a  simple, 
luminous  and  deeply  interesting  way." — Edwin  P.  IVentworth,  ex-President  Maine  Chau- 
tauqua Union. 

"  Mr.  Post  is  a  clear  and  pleasing  speaker.  He  is  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  single 
tax  theory.  He  states  his  case  in  a  clear  and  convincing  manner.  He  was  especially  satisfac- 
tory in  the  exposition  of  the  single  tax  theory,  which  he  jiave  to  the  class  in  answer  to  questions 
by  members  of  the  class." — Prif.  Jesse  Macy,  Chair  of  Constitutional  History  and  Political 
Economy,  Iowa  College,  Grinnell,  la. 

"  I  was  an  interested  listener  at  Mr.  Post's  last  lecture  in  Seattle.  I  did  not  miss  a  word, 
nor  lose  a  thought.  While  not  accepting  all  his  doctrine,  I  believe  he  has  no  superior  on  the 
platform  to-day." — Thomas  M.  Gatch,  President  of  the  University  of  the  State  of  IVash- 
ington,  Seattle,  Wash. 

LETTERS  FROM  REPRESENTATIVE  MEN. 

"  Mr.  Post's  method  of  presenting  the  subject  of  political  economy  is  admirable.  His 
charts  and  diagrams,  together  with  his  clear,  concise,  and  forcible  manner  of  presenting  the 
subject,  make  his  lectures  exceedingly  entertaining  and  instructive." — E.  H.  Long,  Superin- 
tendent  of  Public  Schools  of  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

"  I  not  only  enjoyed  your  lecture  immensely,  but  think  that  any  one  who  had  the  vaguest 
interest  in  social  questions  could  not  help  being  pleased  with  it." — Bolton  Hall,  A'ew  York 
City. 

'•  I  am  not  satisfied  to  let  you  leave  Boston  without  an  expression  of  my  enjoyment  of  your 
admirable  lectures.  The  approving  words  that  have  since  come  to  me  from  many  listeners  are 
an  assurance  that  my  opinion  is  unbiased."—  U^in.  Lloyd  Garrison,  Boston,  Mass. 

"  Wherever  my  endorsement  may  be  of  any  use  to  you  I  will  be  glad  unequivocally  to  give 
it — to  your  personal  character,  to  your  ability  as  a  writer  and  lecturer,  and  to  the  soundness, 
from  my  point  of  view,  of  the  single  tax  doctrines  you  are  so  successfully  teaching." — Henry 
George. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  NEWSPAPER  REPORTS  AND  EDITORIALS. 

Mr.  Post  is  eloquent  and  entertaining." — San  Francisco  (^Cal.')  Chronicle. 
Mr.  Post  is  a  speaker  of  much  magnetism.     His  lecture  was  replete  with  anecdote,  and 
abounded  in  humor  and  illustration." — Los  Angeles  (jCal.')  Express. 

"He  is  not  rhetorical  ;  uses  plain,  simple  language,  and  is  a  natural  logician.  A  subject 
complicated  to  many  was  made  simple  and  clear  by  his  instructive  discourse." — Waco  (7V.r.) 
Evening  Ne^vs. 

I'  He  is  an  orator,  but  his  style  is  conversational.  .  .  His  language  was  so  clear  that  even 
a  child  could  understand." — El  Paso  (7>.r.)  Daily  Times. 

"There  was  not  a  dr>'  nor  uninteresting  moment  in  the  whole  discourse."— 5"a;«  Francisco 
CCal.')  Star. 


(4 


11  EXTRACTS   FROM   NEWSPAPERS. 

"  Mr.  Post's  success  in  the  treatment  of  his  subject  lies  in  the  charm  of  his  manner.  He 
talks  to  his  audience,  never  tiring  them,  surprising  them  by  apt  and  unexpected  contrasts 
and  illustrations,  and  running  in  his  explanatory  anecdotes  with  a  fluency  and  dry  humor  which 
sustain  interest  until  the  last  word.  .  .  He  never  spared  hypocrisy,  winked  at  dishonesty,  or 
tolerated  any  means  of  redress  for  wrongs  except  by  peaceable  and  logical  means." — Seattle 
(Wash.~)  Post-Intelligencer. 

"  Mr.  Post's  style  was  admirable,  his  utterance  rapid,  and  he  crowded  into  the  compass  of 
a  single  lecture  enough  to  make  a  volume." — Raton  i_N.  71/.)  Reporter. 

"  Mr.  Post  is  a  clear  speaker,  not  lacking  in  platform  readiness  and  wit." — Montreal 
Herald. 

"  Mr.  Louis  F.  Post  is  a  clear,  logical,  and  extremely  careful  speaker." — Montreal  Witness. 

"A  fluent  speaker,  and  states  his  points  very  clearly." —  Toronto  Efnpire. 

"  Mr.  Post's  style  is  lucid  and  forcible,  without  anything  savoring  of  grandiloquence." 
—  Vancouver  (^B.  C.~)  Daily  News-Advertiser. 

"  He  is  a  splendid  speaker,  clear,  forcible,  uses  no  notes,  and  besides,  is  possessed  of  the 
gift  of  humor,  which  he  brings  into  welcome  play."  — A7j;2rt/w^  (^B.  C.)  Free  Press. 

"  The  large  audience  was  delighted  with  the  lecture,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  many 
of  the  ideas  advanced  were  new  and  strange  to  the  greater  part." — Aspen  {Col.)  Daily  Tinies. 

"  He  IS  a  plea.-iing  and  effective  speaker,  and  understands  his  subject  so  thoroughly  that 
he  easily  gained  and  held  the  attention  of  his  entire  audience  from  the  beginning  to  the  close  of 
his  lecture." — Mascoutah  (///.)  Herald. 

"  A  very  pleasing  speaker,  easy  and  natural,  with  excellent  voice  and  convincing  man- 
ner."—^/^?«  (///.)  Daily  News. 

"  Mr,  Post  is  an  ideal  lecturer." — Siotix  City  (,Ia^  Jouvjial. 

"  Mr.  Post  is  one  of  the  most  forcible  speakers  heard  in  Des  Moines  on  any  subject  in  a 
long  time." — Des  Moines  (Ja.)  Saturday  Review. 

"  Louis  F.  Post  turned  what  would  ordinarily  be  a  dry,  abstract  discussion,  in  which  only 
special  students  would  be  interested,  into  a  dissertation  which  all  could  understand,  and  by 
which  all  could  profit." — Dubuque  (/a.}  Herald. 

"  An  admirable  presentation  of  the  single  tax  doctrine." — Cedar  Rapids  {la.')  Republican. 

"  Mr,  Post  is  a  very  entertaining  talker,  and  is  thoroughly  versed  in  political  economy." 
— Atchison  (^Kan~)  Globe. 

"  For  two  and  one-half  hours  he  held  the  attention  of  his  audience,  interest  in  the  subject 
increasing  at  every  stage  of  his  address." — New  Iberia  (^La.)  Enterprise. 

"  Held  his  audience  as  by  the  power  of  a  master  mind." — New  Iberia  {La.)  Daily 
Iberian. 

"  A  masterpiece  of  earnest  eloquence  and  logical  argument." — Boston  {Mass.)  Advertiser. 

"  Has  a  power  of  clear  and  graphic  presentation  which  few  men  possess." — J-iditorial  in 
Boston  {Mass.)  Herald. 

"  The  exposition  of  the  Henry  George  theory  was  entertainingly  clear,  and  furnishes  a 
good  basis  for  future  thought  upon  the  subject." — University  of  Michigan  Daily  ^  A  nn  Arbor. 

"  The  lecture — it  was  more  of  a  talk — was  really  a  primer  lesson  on  government  and  taxa- 
tion.    It  was  quietly  and  earnestly  given  in  plain  words." — Detroit  (^Mich.)  Tribune, 

"The  lecturer  is  one  of  the  best  on  the  American  platform." — Cadillac  {Mich.)  State 
Democrat. 

"  Mr.  Post  strikes  one  as  being  a  deep  thinker,  a  scholar,  a  gentleman,  and  an  unostenta- 
tious talker  who  loses  sight  of  himself  in  the  interest  he  feels  in  the  subject  he  is  presenting." 
— Adrian  {Mick.)  Daily  Tinies. 

"  Mr.  Post  is  a  very  attractive  and  convincing  speaker,  and  the  impression  he  made  upon 
all  who  heard  his  address  last  night  was  most  favorable,  and  undoubtedly  gave  dignity  and 
won  intellectual  respect  for  his  cause  from  many  persons  who  have  not  heretofore  been  disposed 
to  give  it  serious  consideration." — Editorial  in  Minneapolis  {Mifi^-^   Times. 

"  Mr.  Post  is  evidently  much  more  interested  in  impressing  his  audience  with  the  theory 
he  elaborates  than  with  himself  as  its  exponent.  His  gestures  are  a  secondary  consideration, 
and  his  appearance  is  that  of  a  professor  before  his  class." — Kansas  City  (Mo.)  Times. 

"  The  address  was  two  hours  and  a  half  in  delivery,  but  was  so  clear  and  logical  that  it 
was  listened  to  with  great  interest." — Lincoln  (Neb.)  State  Journal. 

"  His  oratory  held  the  attention  of  the  audience  throughout  his  lecture." — Buffalo  {N.  K) 
Enquirer. 

"  He  delighted  his  hearers  by  his  lucid  treatment  of  the  th.Gme."— Philadelphia  (Pa.) 
Record. 

"  A  fluent  and  entertaining  talker,  and  speaks  entirely  without  notes.  He  intersperses 
his  arguments  and  solid  points  with  illustrations  in  the  shape  of  luminous  anecdotes." — Gal- 
veston {Tex. \  Daily  News. 

"  An  interesting  speaker,  and  his  lecture  was  occasionally  varied  by  a  bright  epigram  or 
laughable  anecdote  that  gave  pungency  to  his  speech." — Spokane  (Wash.)  Chronicle. 

''  Mr.  Post  is  a  clear  and  forcible  speaker,  and  presents  the  Henry  George  theory  of 
taxation  with  fine  effect." — Christian  Standard. 


OUTLINES 


OF 


LOUIS    F.    POST'S    LECTURES 


v\ 


ON 

The  Single  Tax 

Absolute  Free  Trade 
The  Labor  Question 

Progress  and  Poverty 
The  Land  Question 

The  Elements  of  Political  Economy 
Socialism 

Hard  Times 

PVith  lUmtrative  Notes  and  Charts 


_      _  Copyright    1894 


NEW  YORK 

THE   STERLING   LIBRARY 
106  Fulton  Street 


STERLING    PRESS, 

97  SOUTH  FIFTH  AVENUb, 

NEW  YORK. 


'3 


\'i 


CONTENTS. 


DIVISION  PAGE 

Prefatory  Note, i 

I.     The  Single  Tax  Defined,     ......  i 

II.     The  Single  Tax  as  a  Fiscal  Reform,       .         .  .4 

1.  Direct  and  Indirect  Taxation,         ...  4 

2.  The  Two  Kinds  of  Direct  Taxation,            .        .  7 

(i)  In  proportion  to  ability  to  pay;  ana  (,2)  in  proportion 
to  benefits  received. 

3.  The  Single  Tax  Falls  IN  Proportion  TO  Benefits,  to 

4.  Conformity  to  General  Principles  of  Taxation,  15 

a.  Interference  with  Production,        .        .  16 

b.  Cheapness  of  Collection 17 

c.  Certainty, 17 

d.  Equality, 19 

III.     The  Single  Tax  as  a  Social  Reform,           ...  20 

1.  The  Source  of  Wealth  (Charts),     .        .         .        -  27 

2.  The  Production  of  Wealth,              ...  37 

a.  Division  of  Labor  (Charts),     .         .         .        .40 

b.  Trade  (Charts),              42 

c.  The  Law  of  Division  of  Labor  and  Trade 

(Charts), 45 

Note  72.  Mechanism  of  Trade  (Charts),           .           .  52 

d.  Dependence  of  Labor  upon  Land  (Chart),  59 


vi  CONTENTS. 

DIVISION  PAGE 

3.     The  Distribution  of  Wealth,        .         .        .        .63 

a.  Explanation  of  Wages  and  Rent,  .  66 

b.  Normal  Effect  of  Social  Progress  upon 

Wages  and  Rent, 72 

c.  Significance  of  the  Upward  Tendency  of 

Rent, 74 

d.  Effect  of  Confiscating  Rent  to  Private 

Use,  76 

e.  Effect   of   Retaining   Rent   for   Common 

Use, c        .  86 

IV.     Conclusion, ,88 

Appendix: 

Brief  Answers  to  Typical  Questions,  .        .         .91 


Il 


OUTLINES    OF   POST'S    LECTURES. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 

These  "Outlines,"  while  giving  neither  the  substance  nor  the 
arrangement  of  any  of  the  lectures  named  in  the  title,  contain  the 
leading  points  of  all.  But  to  make  the  points  consecutive  they 
have  been  woven  into  one  of  the  lectures — that  on  the  Single  Tax. 
This,  however,  is  not  arbitrary,  for  the  philosophy  of  the  single  tax 
involves  the  elementary  principles  of  absolute  free  trade,  of  the 
labor  question,  of  poverty  with  progress,  of  the  land  question,  and 
of  political  economy  ;  and  while  exposing  the  fallacies  of  socialism 
it  explains  the  problem  of  hard  times. 

The  "  Outlines  "  do  n^*  take  the  place  of  the  lectures.  They 
are  published  merely  to  -epare  the  mind  of  the  reader  in 
advance  to  more  fully  appre.  Jthe  lectures  during  delivery,  and 
to  assist  afterward  in  recalli;.  and  deliberately  considering  and 
criticizing  what  is  advanced  i» om  the  platform.  To  this  end  the 
principal  charts  of  all  the  lectin  es  are  reproduced. 

The  text  in  large  type  is  a  connected  explanation.  It  may  be 
read  and  fully  understood  without  refeJ-4ice  to  the  notes.  But  the 
notes  elaborate  and  illustrate  points  wlrich,  from  the  conciseness 
of  their  statement  in  the  text,  m^  ^em  obscure  to  readers  who 
are  unaccustomed  to  economic  thov  , 


1~-    I 


I.     THE    SINGLE    l^^.X   DEFINED. 

-  4 

3 

The  practical  form  in  which  s:  ^^nry  George  puts  the 
idea  of  appropriating  economic  .ent  to  common  use  is 
"  To  abolisJi  all  taxation  save  th'i!t  upon  land  vainest  ' 

I.  "  Progress  and  Poverty,''  book  viii,  ch.  ii. 


2  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

This  is  now  generally  known  as  "  The  Single  Tax."  ' 
Under  its  operation  all  classes  of  workers,  whether 
manufacturers,  merchants,  bankers,  professional  men, 
clerks,  mechanics,  farmers,  farm-hands,  or  other  work- 
ing classes,  would,  as  snc/i,  be  wholly  exempt.  It  is 
only  as  men  own  land  that  they  would  be  taxed,  the 
tax  of  each  being  in  proportion,  not  to  the  area,  but  to 
the  value  of  his  land.  And  no  one  would  be  com- 
pelled to  pay  a  higher  tax  than  others  if  his  land  were 
improved  or  used  while  theirs  was  not,  nor  if  his  were 
better  improved  or  better  used  than  theirs."*     The  value 

2.  In  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  book  viii,  ch.  iv,  Henry  George  speaks  of  "the 
effect  of  substituting  for  the  manifold  taxes  now  imposed,  a  single  tax  on  the  value 
of  land  ";  but  the  term  did  not  become  a  distinctive  name  until  1888. 

The  first  general  movement  along  the  lines  of  "  Progress  and  Poverty ''  began 
with  the  New  York  City  election  of  1886,  when  Henry  George  polled  68,110  votes  as 
an  independent  candidate  for  mayor,  and  was  defeated  by  the  Democratic  candidate, 
Abram  S.  Hewitt,  by  a  pluralitj^  of  only  22,442,  the  Republican,  Theodore  Roosevelt, 
polling  but  60,435.  Following  that  election  the  United  Labor  Part)'  was  formed, 
which  at  the  Syracuse  Convention  in  August,  1887,  by  the  exclusion  of  the  Socialists, 
came  to  represent  the  central  idea  of  "Progress  and  Poverty"  as  distinguished  from 
the  Socialistic  propaganda  which  until  then  was  identifiedwith.it.  Coincident  with 
the  organization  of  the  United  Labor  Party  the  Anti-Poverty  Society  was  formed ; 
and  the  two  bodies,  one  representing  the  political  and  the  other  the  religious  phase  of 
the  idea,  worked  together  until  President  Cleveland's  tariff  message  of  1887  appeared. 
In  this  message  Mr.  George  saw  the  timid  beginnings  of  that  open  struggle  between 
protection  and  free  trade  to  which  he  had  for  years  looked  forward  as  the  political 
movement  that  must  culminate  in  the  abolition  of  all  taxes  save  those  upon  land  values, 
and  he  responded  at  once  to  the  sentiments  of  the  message.  But  many  protectionists, 
who  had  follov/ed  him  because  thej'  supposed  he  was  a  land  nationalizer,  now  broke 
away  from  his  leadership,  and  the  United  Labor  Party  and  the  Anti-Poverty  Society 
were  soon  practically  dissolved.  Those  who  understood  Mr.  George's  real  position 
regarding  the  land  question  readily  acquiesced  in  his  views  as  to  political  policy,  and 
a  considerable  movement  resulted,  which,  however,  for  some  time  lacked  an  identifying 
name.  This  was  the  situation  when  Thomas  G.  Shearman,  Esq.,  wrote  for  the 
Standard  zn  article  on  taxation  in  which  he  illustrated  and  advocated  the  land  value 
tax  as  a  fiscal  measure.  The  article  had  been  submitted  without  a  caption,  and  Mr. 
George,  then  the  editor  of  the  Standard,  ^nt\t\e.A  it  "  The  Single  Tax."  This  title 
was  at  once  adopted  by  the  "George  men,"  as  they  were  often  called,  and  has  ever 
since  served  as  the  name  of  the  movement  it  describes. 

Though  "  the  single  tax  "  is  the  English  form  of  "  I'impot  unique,"  the  name  of 
the  French  physiocratic  doctrine  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  names  have  no 
historical  connection,  and  they  stand  for  different  ideas. 

3.  When  it  is  remembered  that  some  land  in  cities  is  worth  millions  of  dollars  an 
acre,  that  a  small  building  lot  in  the  business  center  of  even  a  small  village  is  worth 
more  than  a  whole  field  of  the  best  farming  land  in  the  neighborhood,  that  a  few  acres 


THE   SINGLE   TAX    DEFINED.  3 

of  its  improvements  would  not  be  considered  in  esti- 
mating the  value  of  a  holding  ;  site  value  alone  would 
govern.*  If  a  site  rose  in  the  market  the  tax  would 
proportionately  increase  ;  if  that  fell,  the  tax  would 
proportionately  diminish. 

The  single  tax  may  be  concisely  described  as  a  tax 
upon  land  alone,  in  the  ratio  of  value,  irrespective  of 
improvements  or  use. 

of  coal  or  iron  land  are  worth  more  than  great  groups  of  farms,  that  the  right  of  way 
of  a  railroad  company  through  a  thickly  settled  district  or  between  important  points 
is  worth  more  than  its  rolling  stock,  and  that  the  value  of  workingmen's  cottages  in 
the  suburbs  is  trifling  in  comparison  with  the  value  of  city  residence  sites,  the 
absurdity,  if  not  the  dishonesty,  of  the  plea  that  the  single  tax  would  discriminate 
against  farmers  and  small  homeowners  and  in  favor  of  the  rich  is  apparent.  The  bad 
faith  of  this  plea  is  emphasized  when  we  consider  that  under  existing  systems  of 
taxation  the  farmer  and  the  poor  home  owner  are  compelled  to  pay  in  taxes  upon 
improvements,  food,  clothing,  and  other  objects  of  consumption,  much  more  than  the 
full  annual  value  of  their  bare  land. 

4.  The  difference  between  site  value  and  improvement  value  is  much  more 
definite  than  it  is  often  supposed  to  be.  Even  in  what  would  seem  at  first  to  be  most 
confusing  cases,  it  is  easily  distinguished.  If  in  any  example  we  imagine  the  complete 
destruction  of  all  the  improvements,  we  may  discover  in  the  remaining  value  of  the 
property — in  the  price  it  would  after  such  destruction  fetch  in  the  real  estate  market — 
the  value  of  the  site  as  distinguished  from  the  value  of  the  improvements.  This 
residuum  of  value  would  be  the  basis  of  computation  for  levying  the  single  tax. 

The  distinction  is  frequently  made  in  business  life.  Whenever  in  the  course  of 
ordinary  business  affairs  it  becomes  necessary  to  estimate  the  value  of  a  building  lot,  or 
to  fix  royalties  for  mining  privileges,  no  difficulty  is  experienced,  and  substantial 
justice  is  done.  And  though  the  exigencies  of  business  seldom  require  the  site  value 
of  an  improved  farm  to  be  distinguished  from  the  value  of  its  improvements,  yet  it 
could  doubtless  be  done  as  easily  and  justly  as  with  city  or  mining  property.  Unim- 
proved land  attached  to  any  farm  in  question,  or  unimproved  land  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, if  similar  in  fertility  and  location,  would  furnish  a  sufficiently  accurate  measure. 
If  neither  existed,  the  value  of  the  contiguous  highway  would  always  be  available. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  land  for  which  the  demand  is  so  weak  that  its  site 
value  cannot  be  easily  distinguished  from  the  value  of  its  improvements,  is  certain 
to  be  land  of  but  little  value,  and  almost  certain  to  have  no  value  at  all. 

The  objection  that  the  value  of  land  cannot  be  distinguished  from  the  value  of  its 
improvements  is  among  the  most  frivolous  of  the  objections  that  have  been  raised  to 
the  single  tax  by  people  with  whom  the  wish  that  it  may  be  impracticable  is  father  to 
the  thought  that  it  really  is  so. 


4  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

11.     THE   SINGLE   TAX   AS   A   FISCAL 

REFORM. 

I.    Direct  and  Indirect  Taxation. 

Taxes  are  either  direct  or  indirect ;  or,  as  they  have 
been  aptly  described,  "  straight  "  or  "  crooked."  Indi- 
rect taxes  are  those  that  may  be  shifted  by  the  first 
payer  from  himself  to  others ;  direct  taxes  are  those 
that  cannot  be  shifted.^ 

The  shifting  of  indirect  taxes  is  accomphshed  by 
means  of  their  tendency  to  increase  the  prices  of  com- 
modities upon  which  they  fall.  Their  magnitude  and 
incidence^  are  thereby  disguised.  It  was  for  this  reason 
that  a  great  French  economist  of  the  last  century 
denounced  them  as  "  a  scheme  for  so  plucking  geese 
as  to  get  the  most  feathers  with  the  least  squawking.'" 

5.  "  Taxes  are  either  direct  or  indirect.  A  direct  tax  is  one  which  is  demanded 
from  the  very  persons  who,  it  is  intended  or  desired,  should  pay  it.  Indirect  taxes  are 
those  which  are  demanded  from  one  person  in  the  expectation  and  intention  that  he 
shall  indemnify  himself  at  the  expense  of  another."— y^/^«  Sticart  MilT s  Prin.  0/ 
Pol.  Ec,   book  7',  ch.  iiiy  sec.  i. 

"  Direct  taxes  are  those  which  are  levied  on  the  very  persons  who  it  is  intended 
or  desired  should  pay  them,  and  which  they  cannot  put  off  upon  others  by  raising  the 
prices  of  the  taxed  article.  .  .  Indirect  taxes  on  the  other  hand  are  those  which  are 
levied  on  persons  who  expect  to  get  back  the  amount  of  the  tax  by  raising  the  price  of 
the  taxed  article." — La^ighlin's  Elements.,  par.  249. 

Taxes  are  direct  "  when  the  payment  is  made  by  the  person  who  is  intended  to 
bear  the  sacrifice."  Indirect  taxes  are  recovered  from  final  purchasers.— _/fZ'i'«j'j 
Primer,  sec.  96. 

"  Indirect  taxes  are  so  called  because  they  are  not  paid  into  the  treasury  by  the 
person  who  really  bears  the  burden.  The  payer  adds  the  amount  of  the  tax  to  the 
price  of  the  commodity  taxed,  and  thus  the  taxation  is  concealed  under  the  increased 
price  of  some  article  of  luxury  or  convenience." — Thompson'' s  Pol.  Ec,  sec.  175. 

6.  Jevons  defines  the  incidence  of  a  tax  as  "  the  manner  in  which  it  falls  upon  differ- 
ent classes  of  the  population." — JevoNs''i  Primer,  sec.  96. 

Sometimes  called  "  repercussion,"  and  refers  "  to  the  real  as  opposed  to  the  nominal 
payment  of  taxes." — Ely's  Taxation,  p.  64. 

7.  Though  his  language  was  blunt,  the  sentiment  does  not  essentially  differ  from 
that  of  "  statesmen  "  of  our  day  who  meet  all  the  moral  and  economic  objections  to 
indirect  taxation  with  the  one  reply  that  the  people  would  not  consent  to  pay  enough 
for  the  support  of  government  if  public  revenues  were  collected  from  them  directly. 


INDIRECT   TAXATION.  5 

Indirect  taxation  costs  the  real  tax-payers  much 
more  than  the  government  receives,  partly  because  the 
middlemen  through  whose  hands  taxed  commodities 
pass  are  able  to  exact  compound  profits  upon  the  tax/ 

This  means  nothing  but  that  the  people  are  actually  hoodwinked  by  indirect  taxation 
into  sustaining  a  government  that  they  would  not  support  if  they  knew  it  was  main- 
tained at  their  expense  ;  and  instead  of  being  a  reason  for  continuing  indirect  taxation, 
would,  if  true,  be  one  of  the  strongest  of  reasons  for  abolishing  it.  It  is  consistent 
neither  with  the  plainest  principles  of  democracy  nor  the  simplest  conceptions  of 
morality. 

8.  A  tax  upon  shoes,  paid  in  the  first  instance  by  shoe  manufacturers,  enters  into 
manufacturers'  prices,  and,  together  with  the  usual  rale  of  profit  upon  that  amount 
of  investment,  is  recovered  from  wholesalers.  The  tax  and  the  manufacturers'  profit 
upon  it  then  constitute  part  of  the  wholesale  price  and  are  collected  from  retailers. 
The  retailers  in  turn  collect  the  tax  with  all  intermediate  profits  upon  it,  together  with 
their  usual  rate  of  profit  upon  the  whole,  from  final  purchasers — the  consumers  of 
shoes.  Thus  what  appears  on  the  surface  to  be  a  tax  upon  shoe  manufacturers  proves 
upon  examination  to  be  an  indirect  tax  upon  shoe  consumers,  who  pay  in  an 
accumulation  of  profits  upon  the  tax  considerably  more  than  the  government  receives. 

The  effect  would  be  the  same  if  a  tax  upon  their  leather  output  were  imposed  upon 
tanners.  Tanners  would  add  to  the  price  of  leather  the  amount  of  the  tax,  plus  their 
usual  rate  of  profit  upon  a  like  investment,  and  collect  the  whole,  together  with  the 
cost  of  hides,  of  transportation,  of  tanning  and  of  selling,  from  shoe  manufacturers, 
who  would  collect  with  their  profit  from  retailers,  who  would  collect  with  their  profit 
from  shoe  consumers.  The  principle  applies  also  when  taxes  are  levied  upon  the 
stock  or  the  sales  of  merchants,  or  the  money  or  credits  of  bankers  ;  merchants  add  the 
tax  with  the  usual  profit  to  the  prices  of  their  goods,  and  bankers  add  it  to  their 
interest  and  discounts. 

For  example,  a  tax  of  $100,000  upon  the  output  of  manufacturers  or  importers 
would,  at  10  per  cent,  as  the  manufacturing  profit,  cost  wholesalers  $110,000 ; 
at  a  profit  of  10  per  cent,  to  wholesalers  it  would  cost  retailers  $121,000,  and  at  20 
per  cent,  profit  to  retailers  it  would  finally  impose  a  tax  burden  of  $145,200 — being  45 
per  cent,  more  than  the  government  would  get.  Upon  most  commodities  the  number 
of  profits  exceeds  three,  so  that  indirect  taxes  may  frequently  cost  as  much  as  100  per 
cent.,  even  when  imposed  only  upon  what  are  commercially  known  as  finished  goods  ; 
when  imposed  upon  materials  also,  the  cost  of  collection  might  well  run  far  above  200 
percent,  in  addition  to  the  first  cost  of  maintaining  the  machinery  of  taxation. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  recovery  of  indirect  taxes  from  the 
ultimate  consumers  of  taxed  goods  is  arbitrary.  When  shoe  manufacturers,  or  tanners, 
or  merchants  add  taxes  to  prices,  or  bankers  add  them  to  interest,  it  is  not  because 
they  might  do  otherwise .  but  choose  to  do  this;  it  is  because  the  exigencies  of 
trade  compel  them.  Manufacturers,  merchants,  and  other  tradesmen  who  carry  on 
competitive  businesses  must  on  the  average  sell  their  goods  at  cost  plus  the  ordinary 
rate  of  profit,  or  go  out  of  business.  It  follows  that  any  increase  in  cost  of  production 
tends  to  increase  the  price  of  products.  Now,  a  tax  upon  the  output  of  business  men, 
which  they  must  pay  as  a  condition  of  doing  their  business,  is  as  truly  part  of  the  cost 
of  their  output  as  is  the  price  of  the  materials  they  buy  or  the  wages  of  the  men  they 
hire.  Therefore,  such  a  tax  upon  business  men  tends  to  increase  the  price  of  their  pro- 
ducts. And  this  tendency  is  more  or  less  marked  as  the  tax  is  more  or  less  great  and 
cempetition  more  or  less  keen. 


6  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

and  partly  on  account  of  extraordinary  expenses  of 
original  collection  f  it  favors  corruption  in  government 
by  concealing  from  the  people  the  fact  that  they  con- 
tribute to  the  support  of  government ;  and  it  tends, 
by  obstructing  production,  to  crush  legitimate  indus- 
try and  establish  monopolies.'"  The  questions  it  raises 
are  of  vastly  more  concern  than  is  indicated  by  the  sum 
total  of  public  expenditures. 

Whoever  calmly  reflects  and  candidly  decides  upon 
the  merits  of  indirect  taxation  must  reject  it  in  all  its 
forms.  But  to  do  that  is  to  make  a  great  stride  toward 
accepting  the  single  tax.  For  the  single  tax  is  a  form 
of  direct  taxation ;  it  cannot  be  shifted." 

It  is  true  that  a  moderate  tax  upon  monopolized  products,  such  as  trade-mark  goods, 
proprietary  medicines,  patented  articles  and  copyright  publications  is  not  necessarily 
shifted  to  consumers.  The  monopoly  manufacturer  whose  prices  are  not  checked  by 
cost  of  production,  and  are  therefore  as  a  rule  higher  than  competitive  prices  would  be, 
may  find  it  more  profitable  to  bear  the  burden  of  a  tax  that  leaves  him  some  profit, 
thereby  preserving  his  entire  custom,  than  to  drive  off  part  of  his  custom  by  adding 
the  tax  to  his  usual  prices.  This  is  true  also  of  a  moderate  import  tax  to  the  extent 
that  it  falls  upon  goods  that  are  more  cheaply  transported  from  the  place  of  pro- 
duction to  a  foreign  market  where  the  import  tax  is  imposed  than  to  a  home  market 
where  the  goods  would  be  free  of  such  a  tax— products,  for  instance,  of  a  farm 
in  Canada  near  to  a  New  York  town,  but  far  away  from  any  Canadian  town.  If  the 
tax  be  less  than  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  transportation  the  producer  will  bear 
the  burden  of  it  ;  otherwise  he  will  not.  The  ultimate  effect  would  be  a  reduction 
in  the  value  of  the  Canadian  land.  Examples  which  may  be  cited  in  opposition 
to  the  principle  that  import  taxes  are  indirect,  will  upon  examination  prove  to  be  of  the 
haracter  here  described.     Business  cannot  be  carried  on  at  a  loss — not  for  long. 

Q.  "  To  collect  taxes,  to  prevent  and  punish  evasions,  to  check  and  countercheck 
revenues  drawn  from  so  many  distinct  sources,  now  make  up  probably  three-fourths, 
perhaps  seven-eighths,  of  the  business  of  government  outside  of  the  preservation  of 
order,  the  maintenance  of  the  military  arm,  and  the  administration  of  justice." — 
Progress  and  Poverty,  book  zV-,  ch.  <■'. 

ID.  For  a  brief  and  thorough  exposition  of  indirect  taxation  read  George's  "  Protec- 
tion or  Free  Trade,"  ch.  viii,  on  "  Tariffs  for  Revenue." 

II.  This  is  usually  a  stumbling  block  to  those  who,  without  much  experience 
in  economic  thought,  consider  the  single  tax  for  the  first  time.  As  soon  as  they  grasp 
the  idea  that  taxes  upon  commodities  shift  to  consumers  they  jump  to  the  conclusion 
that  similarly  taxes  upon  land  values  would  shift  to  the  users.  But  this  is  a  mistake, 
and  the  explanation  is  simple.  Taxes  upon  what  men  produce  make  production  more 
difficult  and  so  tend  toward  scarcity  in  the  supply,  which  stimulates  prices  ;  but  taxes 
upon  land,  provided  the  taxes  be  levied  in  proportion  to  value,  tend  toward  plenty  in 
the  supply  (meaning  market  supply  of  course),  because  they  make  it  more  difficult  to 
hold  valuable  land  idle,  and  so  depress  prices. 


V 


direct  taxation.  7 

2.    The  Two  Kinds  of  Direct  Taxation. 

Direct  taxes  fall  into  two  general  classes:  (i)  Taxes 
that  are  levied  upon  men  in  proportion  to  their  ability 
to  pay,  and  (2)  taxes  that  are  levied  in  proportion  to 
the  benefits  received  by  the  tax-payer  from  the  public. 
Income  taxes  are  the  principal  ones  of  the  first  class, 
though  probate  and  inheritance  taxes  would  rank  high. 
The  single  tax  is  the  only  important  one  of  the  second 
class. 

There  should  be  no  difficulty  in  choosing  between 
the  two.     To  tax  in  proportion  to  ability  to  pay,  re- 

"  A  tax  on  rent  falls  wholly  on  the  landlord.  There  are  no  means  by  which  he  can 
shift  the  burden  upon  any  one  else.  .  .  A  tax  on  rent,  therefore,  has  no  effect  other 
than  its  obvious  one.  It  merely  takes  so  much  from  the  landlord  and  transfers  it  to 
the  state."— ^<7/««  Stuart  Mill's  Prin.  of  Pol.  Ec,  book  v,  ch.  Hi,  sec.  i. 

"A  tax  laid  upon  rent  is  borne  solely  by  the  owner  of  land." — Bascotit's  Tr., 

P-  159- 

"  Taxes  which  are  levied  on  land  .  .  .  really  fall  on  the  owner  of  the  land." — 
Mrs.  Faivcetfs  Pol.  Ec,  for  Beginners,  pp.  209,  210. 

"  A  land  tax  levied  in  proportion  to  the  rent  of  land,  and  varying  with  every 
variation  of  rents,  .  .  .  will  fall  wholly  on  the  landlords." — lValker\  Pol.  Ec,  ed.  oj 
1887,/.  413,  quoting  Ricardo. 

"  The  power  of  transferring  a  tax  from  the  person  who  actually  paj's  it  to  some 
other  person  varies  with  the  object  taxed.  A  tax  on  rents  cannot  be  transferred.  A 
tax  on  commodities  is  always  transferred  to  the  consumer." —  Thorold  Rogers'' s  Pol.  Ec, 
ch.  xxi,  2.d  ed.,p.  285. 

"  Though  the  landlord  is  in  all  cases  the  real  contributor,  the  tax  is  commonly 
advanced  by  the  tenant,  to  whom  the  landlord  is  obliged  to  allow  it  in  payment  of  the 
rent." — Adam  Stnitlis  WecUth  of  Nations,  book  v,  ch.  ii,  part  ii,  art.  i,  !.> 

"  The  way  taxes  raise  prices  is  by  increasing  the  cost  of  production  and  checking 
supply.  But  land  is  not  a  thing  of  human  production,  and  taxes  upon  rent  cannot 
check  supply.  Therefore,  though  a  tax  upon  rent  compels  land-owners  to  pay  more, 
it  gives  them  no  power  to  obtain  more  for  the  use  of  their  land,  as  it  in  no  way  tends 
to  reduce  the  supplj'-  of  land.  On  the  contrary,  by  compelling  those  who  hold  land  on 
speculation  to  sell  or  let  for  what  they  can  get,  a  tax  on  land  values  tends  to  increase 
the  competition  between  owners,  and  thus  to  reduce  the  price  of  land." — Progress 
and  Poverty,  book  viii,  ch.  Hi,  subd.  i. 

Sometimes  this  point  is  raised  as  a  question  of  shifting  the  tax  in  higher  rent  to 
the  tenant,  and  at  others  as  a  question  of  shifting  it  to  the  consumers  of  goods  in 
higher  prices.  The  principle  is  the  same.  Merchants  cannot  charge  higher  prices 
for  goods  than  their  competitors  do,  merely  because  they  pay  higher  ground  rents. 
A  country  storekeeper  whose  business  lot  is  worth  but  a  few  dollars  charges  as  much 
for  sugar,  probably  more,  than  a  city  grocer  whose  lot  is  worth  thousands.  Quality  for 
quality  and  quantity  for  quantity,  goods  sell  for  about  the  same  price  everywhere. 
Differences  in  price  are  altogether  in  favor  of  places  where  land  has  a  high  value. 


8  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

gardless  of  benefits  received,  is  in  accord  with  no  prin- 
ciple of  just  government ;  it  is  a  device  of  piracy.  The 
single  tax,  therefore,  as  the  only  important  tax  in  pro- 
portion to  benefits,  is  the  ideal  tax. 

But  here  we  encounter  two  plausible  objections. 
One  arises  from  the  mistaken  but  common  notion  that 
men  are  not  taxed  in  proportion  to  benefits  unless  they 
pay  taxes  upon  every  kind  of  property  they  own  that 
comes  under  the  protection  of  government ;  the  other 
is  founded  in  the  assumption  that  it  is  impossible  to 
measure  the   value   of   the   public  benefits   that  each 

This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  cost  of  getting  goods  to  places  of  low  land  value, 
distant  villages  for  example,  is  greater  than  to  centers,  which  are  places  of  high 
land  value.  Sometimes  it  is  true  that  prices  for  some  things  are  higher  where  land 
values  are  high.  Tiffany's  goods,  for  instance,  may  be  more  expensive  than  goods 
of  the  same  quality  at  a  store  on  a  less  expensive  site.  But  that  is  not  due  to  the 
higher  land  value  ;  it  is  because  the  dealer  has  a  reputation  for  technical  knowledge 
and  honesty  (or  has  become  a  fad  among  rich  people),  for  which  his  customers  are 
willing  to  pay  whether  his  store  is  on  a  high  priced  lot  or  a  low  priced  one. 

Though  land  value  has  no  effect  upon  the  price  of  goods,  it  is  easier  to  sell  goods 
in  some  locations  than  in  others.  Therefore,  though  the  price  and  the  profit  of 
each  sale  be  the  same,  or  even  less,  in  good  locations  than  in  poorer  ones,  aggregate 
receipts  and  aggregate  profits  are  much  greater  at  the  good  location.  And  it  is  out  of 
this  aggregate,  and  not  out  of  each  profit,  that  rent  is  paid.  For  example :  A  cigar 
store  on  a  thoroughfare  supplies  a  certain  quality  of  cigar  for  fifteen  cents.  On  a  side 
street  the  same  quality  of  cigar  can  be  bought  no  cheaper.  Indeed,  the  cigars  there 
are  likely  to  be  poorer,  and  therefore  really  dearer.  Yet  ground  rent  on  the  thorough- 
fare is  very  high  compared  with  ground  rent  on  the  side  street.  How,  then,  can  the 
first  dealer,  he  who  pays  the  high  ground  rent,  afford  to  sell  as  good  or  better  cigars 
for  fifteen  cents  than  his  competitor  of  the  low  priced  location?  Simply  because  he 
is  able  to  make  so  many  more  sales  with  a  given  outlay  of  labor  and  capital  in  a  given 
time  that  his  aggregate  profit  is  greater.  This  is  due  to  the  advantage  of  his  location. 
And  for  that  advantage  he  pays  a  premium  in  higher  ground  rent.  But  that  premium 
is  not  charged  to  smokers  :  the  competing  dealer  of  the  side  street  protects  them.  It 
represents  the  greater  ease,  the  lower  cost,  of  doing  a  given  volume  of  business  upon 
the  site  for  which  it  is  paid  ;  and  if  the  state  should  take  any  of  it,  even  the  whole  of 
it,  in  taxation,  the  loss  would  be  finally  borne  by  the  owner  of  the  advantage  which 
attaches  to  that  site— by  the  landlord.  Any  attempt  to  shift  it  to  tenant  or  buyer 
would  be  promptly  checked  by  the  competition  of  neighboring  but  cheaper  land. 

"  A  land-tax,  levied  in  proportion  to  the  rent  of  land,  and  varying  with  every  varia- 
tion of  rent,  is  in  effect  a  tax  on  rent  ;   and  as  such  a  tax  will   not  apply  to  that  land 
.      which  yields  no  rent,  nor  to  the  produce  of  that  capital  which  is  employed  on  the  land 
\    with  a  view  to  profit   merely,  and  which  never  pays  rent  ;  it  will  not  in  any  way  affect 
the  price  of  raw  produce,  but  will  fall  wholly  on  the  landlords.'"— McCul^ocA's  Ricardo 
(3d  ed.),  p.  107. 


TAXATION    IN   PROPORTION   TO    BENEFITS.  9 

individual  enjoys.  Though  the  first  of  tliese  objections 
ostensibly  accepts  the  doctrine  of  taxation  according 
to  benefits/^  yet,  as  it  leads  to  attempts  at  taxation  in 
proportion  to  wealth,  it,  like  the  other,  is  really  a  plea 
for  the  piratical  doctrine  of  taxation  according  to  ability 
to  pay.     The  two  objections  stand  or  fall  together. 

Let  it  once  be  perceived  that  the  value  of  the  ser- 
vice which  government  renders  to  each  individual 
would  be  justly  measured  by  the  single  tax,  and  neither 
objection  would  any  longer  have  weight.  We  should 
then  no  more  think  of  taxing  people  in  proportion  to 
their  wealth  or  ability  to  pay,  regardless  of  the  benefits 
they  receive  from  government,  than  an  honest  mer- 
chant would  think  of  charging  his  customers  in  propor- 
tion to  their  wealth  or  ability  to  pay,  regardless  of  the 
value  of  the  goods  they  bought  of  him.'^ 

12.  It  is  often  said,  for  instance,  by  its  advocates,  that  house  owners  should  in 
justice  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  fire  departments  that  protect  them  ;  and  it  is 
even  gravely  argued  that  houses  are  more  appropriate  subjects  of  taxation  than  land, 
because  they  need  protection,  whereas  land  needs  none.     Read  note  8. 

13.  Following  is  an  interesting  computation  of  the  cost  and  loss  to  the  cityoE 
Boston  of  the  present  mixed  system  of  taxation  as  compared  with  the  single  tax- 
The  computation  was  made  by  James  R.  Garret,  Esq..  the  leading  conveyancer  of 
Boston ; 

Valuation  oj" Boston,  May  i,  1892. 

Land   $399,170,175 

Buildings  281,109,700 

Total  assessed  value  of  real  estate  $680,279,875 

Assessed  value  of  personal  estate   213,695,829 

$893,975,704 
Rate  oy  taxation,  $12.90 /^r  $1000. 

Total  tax  levy,  May  i,  1892 $11,805,036 

Amount  0/ taxes  levied  in  respect  of  the  different  subjects  0/ taxation  and 

percentages  of  the  same  : 

Per  cent, 

Land    $5,149,295  43tV5 

«"ildings    3,626,315  30/5^7 

Personal  estate     2,756,676  23^5% 

Polls      272,750  2x%V 

$11,805,036  100 

But  to  ascertain  the  total  cost  to  the  people  of  Boston  of  the  present  system  of 
taxation  for  the  taxable  year,  beginning  May  i,  1892,  there  should  be  added  to  the 


„  «  a^  «■  «»%  --^^tE^^e^' 


10  outlines  of  posts  lectures. 

3.    The    Single    Tax  Falls    in  Propor       '  to 
Benefits. 

To  perceive  that  the  single  tax  would  justly  measure 
the  value  of  government  service  we  have  only  to  realize 
that  the  mass  of  individuals  everywhere  and  now,  in 
paying  for  the  land  they  use,  actually  pay  for  govern- 
ment service  in  proportion  to  what  they  receive.  He 
who  would  enjoy  the  benefits  of  a  government  must 
use  land  within  its  jurisdiction.  He  cannot  carry  land 
from  where  government  is  poor  to  where  it  is  good  ; 
neither  can  he  carry  it  from  where  the  benefits  of  good 
government  are  few  or  enjoyed  with  difficulty  to  where 

taxes  assessed  upon  them  what  it  cost  them  to  pay  the  owners  of  the  land  of  Boston 
for  the  use  of  the  land,  being  the  net  ground  rent,  which  I  estimate  at  four  per  cent, 
on  the  land  value. 

Total  tax  levy,  May  i,  1892 $11,805,036 

Net  ground  rent,  four  per  cent,  on  the  land  value  ($399,170,175) 15,966,807 

Total  cost  of  the  present  system  to  the  people  of  Boston  for  that  year $27  771,843 

To  contrast  this  with  what  the  single  tax  system  would  have  cost  the  people  of 
Boston  for  that  year,  take  the  gross  ground  rent,  found  by  adding  to  the  net  ground 
rent  the  taxation  on  land  values  for  that  year,  being  $12.90  per  $1000,  or  i^^o  per  cent, 
added  to  4  per  cent.,  =  5x%%  per  cent. 

Total  cost  of  present  system  as  above  $27,771,843 

Single  tax,  or  gross  ground  rent,  Sx^'ij  per  cent,  on  $399,170,175 21,116,102 

Excess  of  cost  of  present  system,  which  is  the  sum  of  taxes  in  respect  of 

buildings,  personal  property,  and  polls $6,655,741 

But  the  present  system  not  only  costs  the  people  more  than  the  single  tax  would, 
but  produces  less  revenue  : 

Proceeds  of  single  tax  $21,116,102 

Present  tax  levy  11,805,036 

Loss  to  public  treasury  by  present  system  $9,311,066 

This,  however,  is  not  a  complete  contrast  between  the  present  system  and  the 
single  tax,  for  large  amounts  of  real  estate  are  exempt  from  taxation,  being  held  by 
the  United  States,  the  Commonwealth,  by  the  city  itself,  by  religious  societies  and 
corporations,  and  by  charitable,  literary,  and  scientific  institutions.  The  total  amount 
of  the  value  of  land  so  held  as  returned  by  the  assessors  for  the  year  1892  is  $60,626,171. 

Reasons  can  be  given  why  all  lands  within  the  city  should  be  assessed  for  taxation 
to  secure  a  just  distribution  of  the  public  burdens,  which  I  cannot  takethe  space  to 
enter  into  here.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe  also  that  lands  in  the  city  of  Boston 
are  assessed  to  quite  an  appreciable  extent  below  their  fair  market  value.  As  an 
indication  of  this  see  an  editorial  in  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser  for  October  3,  1893, 
under  the  title,  "  Their  Own  Figures." 

The  vacant  lands,  marsh  lands,  and  flats  in  Boston  were  valued  by  the  assessors 
in  1892  (page  3  of  their  annual  report)  at  $52,712,600.  I  believe  that  this  represents 
not  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of  their  true  market  value. 

Taking  this  and  the  undervaluation  of  improved  property  and  the  exemptions 
above  mentioned  into  consideration,  I  think  $500,000,000  to  be  a  fair  estimate  of  the 
land  values  of  Boston.     Making  this  the  basis  of  contrast,  we  have  : 

Proceeds  of  single  tax  e,^o  P^r  cent,  on  $500,000,000    $26,450,000 

Present  tax  levy    11,805,036 

Loss  to  public  treasury  by  present  system $14)644, 974 


SINGLE  TAX  IS  IN  PROPORTION  TO  BENEFITS.       II 

the'  "e  many  and  fully  enjoyed.  He  must  rent  or 
bu_^  .^iid  where  the  benefits  of  government  are  avail- 
able, or  forego  them.  And  unless  he  buys  or  rents 
where  they  are  greatest  and  most  available  he  must 
forego  them  in  degree.  Consequently,  if  he  would 
work  or  live  where  the  benefits  of  government  are 
available,  and  does  not  already  own  land  there,  he  will 
be  compelled  to  rent  or  buy  at  a  valuation  which,  other 
things  being  equal,  will  depend  upon  the  value  of  the 
government  service  that  the  site  he  selects  enables  him 
to  enjoy.'*     Thus  does  he  pay  for  the  service  of  govern- 

14.  Land  values  are  lower  in  all  countries  of  poor  government  than  in  any  country 
of  better  government,  other  things  being  equal.  They  are  lower  in  cities  of  poor 
government,  other  things  being  equal,  than  in  cities  of  better  government.  Land 
values  are  lower,  for  example,  in  Juarez,  on  the  Mexican  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  where 
government  is  bad,  than  in  El  Paso,  the  neighboring  city  on  the  American  side, 
where  government  is  better.  They  are  lower  in  the  same  city  under  bad  government 
than  under  improved  government.  When  Seth  Low,  after  a  reform  campaign,  was 
elected  mayor  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  rents  advanced  before  he  took  the  oath  of  office, 
upon  the  bare  expectation  that  he  would  eradicate  municipal  abuses.  Let  the  city 
authorities  anywhere  pave  a  street,  put  water  through  it  and  sewer  it,  or  do  any  of 
these  things,  and  lots  in  the  neighborhood  rise  in  value.  Everywhere  that  the  "good 
roads  "  agitation  of  wheelmen  has  borne  fruit  in  better  highways,  the  value  of  adjacent 
land  has  increased.  Instances  of  this  effect  as  results  of  public  improvements  might 
be  collected  in  abundance.  Every  man  must  be  able  to  recall  some  within  his  own 
experience. 

And  it  is  perfectly  reasonable  that  it  should  be  so.  Land  and  not  other  property 
must  rise  in  value  with  desired  improvements  in  government,  because,  while  any 
tendency  on  the  part  of  other  kinds  of  prop^rtj-  to  rise  in  value  is  checked  by  greater 
production,  land  can  not  be  reproduced. 

Imagine  an  utterly  lawless  place,  where  life  and  property  are  constantly  threatened 
by  desperadoes.  He  must  be  eitlier  a  very  bold  man  or  a  verj'  avaricious  one  who  will 
build  a  store  in  such  a  community  and  stock  it  with  goods  ;  but  suppose  such  a 
mm  should  appear.  His  store  costs  him  more  than  the  same  building  would  cost 
in  a  civilized  community  ;  mechanics  are  not  plentiful  in  such  a  place,  and  materials 
are  iiard  to  get.  The  building  is  finally  erected,  however,  and  stocked.  And  now 
what  about  this  merchant's  prices  for  goods  ?  Competition  is  weak,  because  there  are 
few  men  who  will  take  the  chances  he  has  taken,  and  he  charges  all  that  his  customers 
will  pay.  A  hundred  per  cent.,  five  hundred  per  cent.,  perhaps  one  or  two  thousand 
per  cent,  profit  rewards  him  for  his  pains  and  risk.  His  goods  are  dear,  enormously 
dear — dear  enough  to  satisfy  the  most  contemptuous  enemy  of  cheapness  ;  and  if  any 
one  should  wish  to  buy  his  store  that  would  be  dear  too,  for  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  building  continue.  But  land  is  cheap  !  This  is  the  type  of  community  in  which 
may  be  found  that  land,  so  often  mentioned  and  so  seldom  seen,  which  "  the  owners 
actually  can't  give  away,  you  know  !  " 


12  OUTLINES   OF   POSTS   LECTURES. 

ment  in  proportion  to  its  value  to  him.  But  he  does 
not  pay  the  public  which  provides  the  service ;  he  is 
required  to  pay  land-owners. 

Now,  the  economic  principle  pursuant  to  which 
land-owners  are  thus  able  to  charge  their  fellow- 
citizens  for  the  common  benefits  of  their  common 
government  points  to  the  true  method  of  taxation. 
With  the  exception  of  such  other  monopoly  property 
as  is  analogous  to  land  titles,  and  which  in  the  purview 
of  the  single  tax  is  included  with  land  for  purposes  of 
taxation,'^  land  is  the  only  kind  of  property  that  is  in- 
creased in  value  by  government ;  and  the  increase  of 
value  is  in  proportion,  other  influences  aside,  to  the 
public  service  which  its  possession  secures  to  the  occu- 
pant. Therefore,  by  taxing  land  in  proportion  to  its 
value,  and  exempting  all  other  property,  kindred  mon- 
opolies excepted — that  is  to  say,  by  adopting  the 
single  tax — we  should  be  levying  taxes  according  to 
benefits.'^ 

And  in  no  sense  vv^ould  this  be  class  taxation.  In- 
deed, the  cry  of  class    taxation  is   a   rather  impudent 

But  suppose  that  government  improves.  An  efficient  administration  of  justice  rids 
the  place  of  desperadoes,  and  life  and  property  are  safe.  What  about  prices  then  ? 
It  would  no  longer  require  a  bold  or  desperately  avaricious  man  to  engage  in  selling 
goods  in  that  community,  and  competition  would  set  in.  High  profits  would  soon 
come  down.  Goods  would  be  cheap — as  cheap  as  anywhere  in  the  world,  the  cost 
of  transportation  considered.  Builders  and  building  materials  could  be  had  without 
difficulty,  and  stores  would  be  cheap,  too.  But  land luould be  dear  !  Improvement  in 
government  increases  the  value  of  that,  and  of  that  alone. 

15.  Railroad  franchises,  for  example,  are  not  usually  thought  of  as  land  titles,  but 
that  is  what  they  are.  By  an  act  of  sovereign  authority  they  confer  rights  of  control 
for  transportation  purposes  over  narrow  strips  of  land  between  terminals  and  along 
trading  points.     The  value  of  this  right  of  way  is  a  land  value. 

16.  Each  occupant  would  pay  to  his  landlord  the  value  of  the  public  benefits 
in  the  way  of  highways,  schools,  courts,  police  and  fire  protection,  etc.,  that  his  site 
enabled  him  to  enjoy.  The  landlord  would  pay  a  tax  proportioned  to  the  pecuniary 
benefits  conferred  upon  him  by  the  public  in  raising  and  maintaining  the  value  of  his 
holding.  And  if  occupant  and  owner  were  the  same,  he  would  pay  directly  according 
to  the  value  of  his  land  for  all  the  public  benefits  he  enjoyed,  both  intangible  and 
pecuniary. 


CLASS   TAXATION.  1 3 

one  for  owners  of  valuable  land  to  raise  against  the 
single  tax,  when  it  is  considered  that  under  existing 
systems  of  taxation  they  are  exempt."  Even  the  poor- 
est and  the  most  degraded  classes  in  the  community, 
besides  paying  land-owners  for  such  public  benefits 
as  come  their  way,  are  compelled  by  indirect  taxation 
to  contribute  to  the  support  of  government.  But  land- 
owners as  a  class  go  free.  They  enjoy  the  protection 
of  the  courts,  and  of  police  and  fire  departments,  and 
they  have  the  use  of  schools  and  the  benefit  of  high- 
ways and  other  public  improvements,  all  in  common 
with  the  most  favored,  and  upon  the  same  specific 
terms  ;  yet,  though  they  go  through  the  form  of  pay- 
ing taxes,  and  if  their  holdings  are  of  considerable 
value  pose  as  ^'  the  tax-payers  "  on  all  important  occa- 
sions, they,  in  effect,  and  considered  as  a  class,  pay  no 
taxes,  because  government,  by  increasing  the  value  of 
their  land,  enables  them  to  recover  back  in  higher 
rents  and  higher  prices  more  than  their  taxes  amount 
to.  Enjoying  the  same  intangible  benefits  of  govern- 
ment that  others  do,  manv  of  them  as  individuals  and 
all  of  them  as  a  class  receive  in  addition  a  tangible 

17.  While  the  land-owners  of  the  City  of  Washington  were  paying  something  less 
than  two  per  cent,  annually  in  taxes,  a  Congressional  Committee  {Report  of  the 
Select  Committee  ta  Investigate  Tax  Assessments  in  the  Distyict  of  Columbia,  covi- 
posed  of  Messrs.  Johnson,  of  Ohio,  Chairman:  Wadsworth,  of  New  York,  and 
Washington,  of  Tennessee.  Made  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  24,  1892. 
Report  No.  1469),  brought  out  the  fact  that  the  value  of  their  land  had  been  increasing 
at  a  minimum  rate  of  ten  per  cent,  per  annum.  The  Washington  land-owners  as 
a  class  thus  appear  to  have  received  back  in  higher  land  values,  actually  and  poten- 
tially, about  ten  dollars  for  every  two  dollars  that  as  land-owners  they  paid  in  taxes.  If 
any  one  supposes  that  this  condition  is  peculiar  to  Washington  let  him  make  similar 
estimates  for  any  progressive  locality,  and  see  if  the  land-owners  there  are  not  favored 
in  like  manner. 

But  the  point  is  not  dependent  upon  increase  in  the  capitalized  value  of  land.  If 
the  land  yields  or  will  yield  to  its  owner  an  income  in  the  nature  of  actual  or  potential  —I — 
ground  rent,  then  to  the  extent  that  this  actual  or  possible  income  is  dependent  upon 
government  the  landlord  is  in  effect  exempt  from  taxation.  No  matter  what  tax  he 
pays  on  account  of  his  ownership  of  land,  the  public  gives  it  back  to  him  to  that 
extent, 


14  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

pecuniary  benefit  which  government  confers  upon  no 
other  property-owners.  The  value  of  their  property 
is  enhanced  in  proportion  to  the  benefits  of  govern- 
ment which  its  occupants  enjoy.  To  tax  them  alone, 
therefore,  is  not  to  discriminate  against  them  ;  it  is  to 
charge  them  for  what  they  get.'* 

i8.  Take  for  illustration  two  towns,  one  of  excellent  government  and  the  other 
of  ineflicient  government,  but  in  all  other  respects  alike.  Suppose  you  are  hunting  for 
a  place  of  residence  and  find  a  suitable  site  in  the  town  of  good  government.  For 
simplicity  of  illustration  let  us  suppose  that  the  land  there  is  not  sold  outright  but  is 
let  upon  ground  rent.  You  meet  the  owner  of  the  lot  you  have  selected  and  ask  him 
his  terms.     He  replies  : 

''  Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a  year." 

"  Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a  year !  "  you  exclaim.  "  Why,  I  can  get  just  as 
good  a  site  in  that  other  town  for  a  hundred  dollars  a  year." 

"  Certainly  you  can,"  he  will  say.  "  But  if  you  build  a  house  there  and  it  catches 
fire  it  will  burn  down  ;  they  have  no  fire  department  If  you  go  out  after  dark  you 
will  be  'held  up'  and  robbed;  they  have  no  police  force.  If  you  ride  out  in  the 
spring,  your  carriage  will  stick  in  the  mud  up  to  the  hubs,  and  if  you  walk  you  may 
break  your  legs  and  will  be  lucky  if  you  don't  break  your  neck  ;  they  have  no  street 
pavements  and  their  sidewalks  are  dangerously  out  of  repair.  When  the  moon 
doesn't  shine  the  streets  are  in  darkness,  for  they  have  no  street  lights.  The  water 
you  need  for  your  house  you  must  get  from  a  well  ;  there  is  no  water  supply  there. 
Now  in  our  town  it  is  different.  We  have  a  splendid  fire  department,  and  the  best 
police  force  in  the  world.  Our  streets  are  macadamized,  and  lighted  with  electricity  ; 
our  sidewalks  are  always  in  first  class  repair ;  we  have  a  water  system  that  equals  that 
of  New  York ;  and  in  every  way  the  public  benefits  in  this  town  are  unsurpassed.  It 
is  the  best  governed  town  in  all  this  region.  Isn't  it  worth  a  hundred  and  fifty  dollars 
a  year  more  for  a  building  site  here  than  over  in  that  poorly  governed  town  ?  " 

You  recognize  the  advantages  and  agree  to  the  terms. 

But  when  your  house  is  built  and  the  assessor  visits  you  officially,  what  would  be 
the  conversation  if  your  sense  of  the  fitness  of  things  were  not  warped  by  familiarity 
with  false  systems  of  taxation  ?     Would  it  not  be  something  like  what  follows  ? 

"  How  much  do  you  regard  this  house  as  worth  ?  "  asks  the  assessor. 

"  What  is  that  to  you  ?  "  you  inquire. 

"  I  am  the  town  assessor  and  am  about  to  appraise  your  property  for  taxation." 

"  Am  I  to  be  taxed  by  this  town  ?     What  for  ?  " 

"What  for?"  echoes  the  assessor  in  surprise.  "  What  for  ?  Is  not  your  house 
protected  from  fire  by  our  magnificent  fire  department.  Are  not  you  protected  from 
robberj'  by  the  best  police  force  in  the  world  ?  Do  not  you  have  the  use  of  macada- 
mized pavements,  and  good  sidewalks,  and  electric  street  lights,  and  a  first  class 
water  supply  ?  Don't  you  suppose  these  things  cost  something  ?  And  don't  you 
think  you  ought  to  pay  your  share  ?  " 

"Yes,"  you  answer,  with  more  or  less  calmness;  "  I  do  have  the  benefit  of  these 
things,  and  I  do  think  that  I  ought  to  pay  my  share  toward  supporting  them.  But  I 
have  already  paid  my  share  for  this  year.  I  have  paid  it  to  the  owner  of  this  lot.  He 
charges  me  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a  year — one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  more 
than  I  should  pay  or  he  could  get  but  for  those  very  benefits.     He  has  collected  my 


the  canons  of  taxation.  i5 

4.    Conformity  to  General  Principles  of  Tax- 
ation. 

The  single  tax  conforms  most  closely  to  the  essential 

principles   of   Adam    Smith's    four   classical    maxims, 

which  are  stated  best  by  Henry  George'^  as  follows: 

The  best  tax  by  which  public  revenues  can  be  raised  is  evi- 
dently that  which  will  closest  conform  to  the  following  conditions  : 

1.  That  it  bear  as  lightly  as  possible  upon  production — so  as 
least  to  check  the  increase  of  the  general  fund  from  which  taxes 
must  be  paid  and  the  community  maintained."^ 

2.  That  it  be  easily  and  cheaply  collected,  and  fall  as  directly 
as  may  be  upon  the  ultimate  payers — so  as  to  take  from  the  people 
as  little  as  possible  in  addition  to  what  it  yields  the  government.^' 

3.  That  it  be  certain — so  as  to  give  the  least  opportunity  for 
tyranny  or  corruption  on  the  part  of  officials,  and  the  least  tempta- 
tion to  law-breaking  and  evasion  on  the  part  of  the  tax-payers.^- 

4.  That  it  bear  equally — so  as  to  give  no  citizen  an  advantage  or 
put  any  at  a  disadvantage,  as  compared  with  others.'-' 

share  of  this  year's  expense  of  maintaining  town  improvements  ;  you  go  and  collect 
from  him.  If  you  do  not,  but  insist  upon  collecting  from  me,  I  shall  be  paying  twice 
for  these  things,  once  to  him  and  once  to  you  ;  and  he  won't  be  paying  at  all,  but  will 
be  making  money  out  of  them,  although  he  derives  the  same  benefits  from  them  in  all 
other  respects  that  I  do." 

19.  "  Progress  and  Poverty,"  book  viii,  ch.  iii. 

20.  This  is  the  second  part  of  Adam  Smith's  fourth  ma.xim.  He  states  it  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Every  tax  ought  to  be  so  contrived  as  both  to  take  out  and  to  keep  out  of 
the  pockets  of  the  people  as  little  as  possible  over  and  above  what  it  brings  into  the 
public  treasury  of  the  state.  A  tax  may  either  take  out  or  keep  out  of  the  pockets  of 
the  people  a  great  deal  more  than  it  brings  into  the  public  treasury  in  the  four  follow- 
ing ways  :  .  .  .  Secondly,  it  may  obstruct  the  industry  of  the  people,  and  discourage 
them  from  applying  to  certain  branches  of  business  which  might  give  maintenance  and 
employment  to  great  multitudes.  While  it  obliges  the  people  to  pay,  it  may  thus 
diminish  or  perhaps  destroy  some  of  the  funds  which  might  enable  them  more  easily  to 
do  so." 

21.  This  is  the  first  part  of  Adam  Smith's  fourth  maxim,  in  which  he  condemns  a 
tax  that  takes  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people  more  than  it  brings  into  the  public 
treasury. 

22.  This  is  Adam  Smith's  second  maxim.  He  states  it  as  follows  :  "  The  tax 
which  each  individual  is  bound  to  pay  ought  to  be  certain  and  not  arbitrary.  The 
time  of  payment,  the  manner  of  payment,  the  quantity  to  be  paid,  ought  all  to  be  clear 
and  plain  to  the  contributor  and  to  every  other  person.  Where  it  is  otherwise,  every 
person  subject  to  the  tax  is  put  more  or  less  in  the  power  of  the  tax  gatherer." 

23.  This  is  Adam  Smith's  first  maxim.  He  states  it  as  follows  :  "  The  subjects 
of  every  state  ought  to  contribute  towards  the  support  of  the  government  as  nearly  as 


l6  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

a.     Interference  with  Production. 

Indirect  taxes  tend  to  check  production  and  cause 
scarcity  by  obstructing  the  processes  of  production. 
They  fall  upon  men  as  they  work,  as  they  do  business, 
as  they  invest  capital  productively."  But  the  single 
tax,  which  must  be  paid  and  be  the  same  in  amount 
regardless  of  whether  the  payer  works  or  plays,  of 
whether  he  invests  his  capital  productively  or  wastes 
it,  of  whether  he  uses  his  land  for  the  most  productive 
purposes"  or  in  lesser  degree  or  not  at  all,  removes  all 
fiscal  penalties  from   industry  and  thrift,  and  tends  to 

possible  in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities,  that  is  to  saj',  in  proportion  to  the 
revenue  which  thej'  respectively  enjoy  under  the  protection  of  the  state.  The  expense 
of  government  to  the  individuals  of  a  great  nation  is  like  the  expense  of  management 
to  the  joint  tenants  of  a  great  estate,  who  are  all  obliged  to  contribute  in  proportion  to 
their  respective  interests  in  the  estate.  In  the  observation  or  neglect  of  this  maxim 
consists  what  is  called  the  equality  or  inequality  of  taxation." 

In  changing  this  Mr.  George  says  ("  Progress  and  Poverty,"  book  viii,  ch.  iii, 
subd.  4):  "Adam  Smith  speaks  of  incomes  as  enjoyed  '  under  the  protection  of  the  state  '; 
and  this  is  the  ground  upon  which  the  equal  taxation  of  all  species  of  property  is 
commonly  insisted  upon — that  it  is  equally  protected  by  the  state.  The  basis  of  this 
idea  is  evidently  that  the  enjoyment  of  property  is  made  possible  by  the  state — that 
there  is  a  value  created  and  maintained  by  the  community,  which  is  justly  called  upon 
to  meet  community  expenses.  Now,  of  what  values  is  this  true  ?  Only  of  the  value 
of  land.  This  is  a  value  that  does  not  arise  until  a  community  is  formed,  and  that, 
unlike  other  values,  grows  with  the  growth  of  the  community.  It  only  exists  as  the 
community  exists.  Scatter  again  the  largest  community,  and  land,  now  so  valuable, 
would  have  no  value  at  all.  With  every  increase  of  population  the  value  of  land 
rises  ;  with  every  decrease  it  falls.  This  is  true  of  nothing  else  save  of  things  which, 
like  the  ownership  of  land,  are  in  their  nature  monopolies." 

Adam  Smith's  third  maxim  refers  only  to  conveniency  of  paj'ment,  and  gives 
countenance  to  indirect  taxation,  vvhich  is  in  conflict  with  the  principle  of  his  fourth 
maxim.     Mr.  George  properly  excludes  it. 

24.  "  Taxation  which  falls  upon  the  processes  of  production  interposes  an  artificial 
obstacle  to  the  creation  of  wealth.  Taxation  which  falls  upon  labor  as  it  is  exerted, 
wealth  as  it  is  used  as  capital,  land  as  it  is  cultivated,  will  manifestly  tend  to  dis- 
courage production  much  more  powerfully  than  taxation  to  the  same  amount  levied 
upon  laborers  whether  they  work  or  play,  upon  wealth  whether  used  productively  or 
unproductively,  or  upon  land  whether  cultivated  or  left  waste." — Progress  and  Poverty^ 
book  viii.,  ch.  iii,  subd.  i. 

25.  It  is  common,  besides  taxing  improvements  as  fast  as  they  are  made,  to  levy 
higher  taxes  upon  land  when  put  to  its  best  use  than  when  put  to  partial  use  or  to  no  use 
at  all.  This  is  upon  the  theory  that  when  his  land  is  used  the  owner  gets  full  income 
from  it  and  can  afford  to  pay  high  taxes  ;  but  that  he  gets  little  or  no  income  when  the 
land  is  out  of  use,  and  so  cannot  afford  to  pay  much.     It  is  an  absurd  but  perfectly 


THE   CANONS   OF  TAXATION.  1 7 

leave  production  free.  It  therefore  conforms  more 
closely  than  indirect  taxation  to  the  first  maxim  quoted 
above. 

b.     Cheapness  of  Collection. 

Indirect  taxes  are  passed  along  from  first  payers  to 
final  consumers  through  many  exchanges,  accumulating 
compound  profits  as  they  go,  until  they  take  enormous 
sums  from  the  people  in  addition  to  what  the  govern- 
ment receives.^''  But  the  single  tax  takes  nothing  from 
the  people  in  excess  of  the  tax.  It  therefore  con- 
forms more  closely  than  indirect  taxation  to  the  second 
maxim  quoted  above. 

c.     Certainty. 

No  other  tax,  direct  or  indirect,  conforms  so  closely 
to  the  third  maxim.  *'  Land  lies  out  of  doors."  It 
cannot  be  hidden  ;  it  cannot  be  "  accidentally  "   over- 

legitirnate  illustration  of  the  pretentious  doctrine  of  taxation  according  to  ability  to 
pay. 

Examples  are  numerous.  Improved  building  lots,  and  even  those  that  are  only 
plotted  for  improvement,  are  usually  taxed  more  than  contiguous  unused  and  unplotted 
land  which  is  equally  in  demand  for  building  purposes  and  equally  valuable.  So  coal 
land,  iron  land,  oil  land,  and  sugar  land  are  as  a  rule  taxed  less  as  land  when  opened 
up  for  appropriate  use  than  when  lying  idle  or  put  to  inferior  uses,  though  the  land 
value  be  the  same.  Any  serious  proposal  to  put  land  to  its  appropriate  use  is  commonly 
regarded  as  a  signal  for  increasing  the  tax  upon  it. 

26.  "All  taxes  upon  things  of  unfixed  quantity  increase  prices,  and  in  the  course 
of  exchange  are  shifted  from  seller  to  buyer,  increasing  as  they  go.  If  we  impose  ^ 
tax  on  money  loaned,  as  has  been  often  attempted,  the  lender  will  charge  the  tax  to 
the  borrower,  and  the  borrower  must  pay  it  or  not  obtain  the  loan.  If  the  borrower 
uses  it  in  his  business,  he  in  his  turn  must  get  back  the  tax  from  his  customers,  or  his 
business  becomes  unprofitable.  If  we  impose  a  tax  upon  buildings,  the  users  of  build- 
ings must  finally  pay  it,  for  the  erection  of  buildings  will  cease  until  building  rents 
become  high  enough  to  pay  the  regular  profit  and  the  tax  besides.  If  we  impose  a  tax 
upon  manufactures  or  imported  goods,  the  manufacturer  or  importer  will  charge  it  in  a 
higher  price  to  the  jobber,  the  jobber  to  the  retailer,  and  the  retailer  to  the  consumer. 
Now,  the  consumer,  on  whom  the  tax  thus  ultimately  falls,  must  not  only  pay  the 
amount  of  the  tax,  but  also  a  profit  on  this  amount  to  every  one  who  has  thus  advanced 
it — for  profit  on  the  capital  he  has  advanced  in  paying  taxes  is  as  much  required  by 
each  dealer  as  profit  on  the  capital  he  has  advanced  in  paying  for  goods." — Progress 
and  Poverty,  book  viit,  ch.  liin,  subd.  2. 


1 8  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

looked.  Nor  can  its  value  be  seriously  misstated. 
Neither  under-appraisement  nor  over-appraisement  to 
any  important  degree  is  possible  without  the  conniv- 
ance of  the  whole  community."  The  land  values  of  a 
neighborhood  are  matters  of  common  knowledge. 
Any  intelligent  resident  can  justly  appraise  them,  and 
every  other  intelligent  resident  can  fairly  test  the  ap- 
praisement. Therefore  the  tyranny,  corruption,  fraud, 
favoritism,  and  evasions  that  are  so  common  in  connec- 
tion with  the  taxation  of  imports,  manufactures,  in- 
comes, personal  property,  and  buildings — the  values  of 
which,  even  when  the  object  itself  cannot  be  hidden, 
are  so  distinctly  matters  of  minute  special  knowledge 
that  only  experts  can  fairly  appraise  them — would  be 
out  of  the  question  if  the  single  tax  were  substituted 
for  existing  fiscal  methods." 

27.  The  under-appraisements  so  common  at  present,  and  alluded  to  in  note  25, 
are  possible  because  the  community,  ignorant  of  the  just  principles  of  taxation,  does 
connive  at  them.  Under-appraisements  are  not  secret  crimes  on  the  part  of  assessors  ; 
they  are  distinctly  recognized,  but  thoughtlessly  disregarded  when  not  actually  insisted 
upon,  by  the  people  themselves.  And  this  is  due  to  the  dishonest  ideas  of  taxation 
that  are  taught.  Let  the  vicious  doctrine  that  people  ought  to  pay  taxes  according  to 
their  ability  give  way  to  the  honest  principle  that  they  should  pay  in  proportion  to  the 
benefits  they  receive,  which  benefits,  as  we  have  already  seen,  are  measured  by  the 
land  values  they  own,  and  undcrappraisement  of  land  would  cease.  No  assessor  can 
befool  the  community  in  respect  of  the  value  of  the  land  within  his  jurisdiction. 

And,  with  the  cessation  of  general  under-appraisement,  favoritism  in  individual 
appraisements  also  would  cease.  General  under-appraisement  fosters  unfair  individual 
appraisements.  If  land  were  generally  appraised  at  Its  full  value,  a  particular  unfair 
appraisement  would  stand  out  in  such  relief  that  the  crime  of  the  assessor  would  be 
exposed.  But  now  if  a  man's  land  is  appraised  at  a  higher  valuation  than  his  neigh- 
bor's equally  valuable  land,  and  he  complains  of  the  unfairness,  he  is  promptly  and 
effectually  silenced  with  a  warning  that  his  land  is  worth  much  more  than  it  is  appraised 
at,  anyhow,  and  if  he  makes  a  fuss  his  appraisement  will  be  increased.  To  complain 
further  of  the  deficient  taxation  of  his  neighbor  is  to  invite  the  imposition  of  a  higher 
tax  upon  himself. 

28.  If  you  wish  to  test  the  merits  in  point  of  certainty  of  the  single  tax  as  com- 
pared with  other  taxes,  go  to  a  real  estate  agent  in  your  community  and,  showing  him 
a  building  lot  upon  the  map,  ask  him  its  value.  If  he  inquires  about  the  improvements, 
instruct  him  to  ignore  them.  He  will  be  able  at  once  to  tell  you  what  the  lot  is  worth. 
And  if  you  go  to  twenty  other  agents  their  estimates  will  not  materially  vary  from  his. 
Yet  none  of  the  agents  will  have  left  his  office.  Each  will  have  inferred  the  value  from 
the  size  and  location  of  the  lot. 


THE    C AXONS   OF   TAXATION.  1 9 

d.     Equality. 

In  respect  of  the  fourth  maxim  the  single  tax  bears 
more  equally — that  is  to  say,  more  justly — than  any 
other  tax.  It  is  the  only  tax  that  falls  upon  the  tax- 
payer in  proportion  to  the  pecuniary  benefits  he  re- 
ceives from  the  public  ;"*^  and  its  tendency,  accelerating 
with  the  increase  of  the  tax,  is  to  leave  to  every  one 
the  full  fruit  of  his  own  productive  enterprise  and 
effort.^*^ 

Bui  suppose  when  you  show  the  map  to  the  first  agent  you  ask  him  the  value  of 
the  land  and  its  improvements.  He  will  tell  you  that  he  cannot  give  an  estimate  until* 
he  examines  the  improvements.  And  if  it  is  the  highly  improved  property  of  a  rich 
man  he  will  engage  building  experts  to  assist  him.  Should  you  ask  him  to  include  the 
value  of  the  contents  of  the  buildings,  he  would  need  a  corps  of  selected  experts, 
including  artists  and  liverymen,  dealers  in  furniture  and  bric-a-brac,  librarians  and 
jewelers.  Should  you  propose  that  he  also  include  the  value  of  the  occupant's  income, 
the  agent  would  throw  up  his  hands  in  despair. 

If  without  the  aid  of  an  army  of  experts  the  agent  should  make  an  estimate  of  these 
miscellaneous  values,  and  twenty  others  should  do  the  same,  their  several  estimates 
would  be  as  wide  apart  as  ignorant  guesses  usually  are.  And  the  richer  the  owner  of 
the  property  the  lower  as  a  proportion  would  the  guesses  probably  be. 

Now  turn  the  real  estate  agent  into  an  assessor,  and  is  it  not  plain  that  he  would 
appraise  land  values  with  much  greater  certainty  and  cheapness  than  he  could  appraise 
the  values  of  all  kinds  of  property  ?  With  a  plot  map  before  him  he  might  fairly  make 
every  appraisement  without  leaving  his  desk  at  the  town  hall. 

And  there  would  be  no  material  difference  if  the  property  in  question  were  a  farm 
instead  of  a  building  lot.  A  competent  farmer  or  business  man  in  a  farming  community 
can,  without  leaving  his  own  door-yard,  appraise  the  value  of  the  land  of  any  farm  there  ; 
whereas  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  value  the  improvements,  stock,  produce,  etc., 
without  at  least  inspecting  them. 

29.  The  benefits  of  government  are  not  the  only  public  benefits  whose  value 
attaches  exclusively  to  land.  Communal  development  from  whatever  cause  produces 
the  same  effect.  But  as  it  is  under  the  protection  of  government  that  land-owners  are 
able  to  maintain  ownership  of  land  and  through  that  to  enjoy  the  pecuniary  benefits  of 
advancing  social  conditions,  government  confers  upon  them  as  a  class  not  only  the 
pecuniary  benefits  of  good  government,  but  also  the  pecuniary  benefits  of  progress  in 
general. 

30.  "  Here  are  two  men  of  equal  incomes — that  of  the  one  derived  from  the 
exertion  of  his  labor,  that  of  the  other  from  rent  of  land.  Is  it  just  that  they  should 
equally  contribute  to  the  expenses  of  the  state?  Evidently  not.  The  income  of  the 
one  represents  wealth  he  creates  and  adds  to  the  general  wealth  of  the  state  ;  the 
income  of  the  other  represents  merely  wealth  that  he  takes  from  the  general  stock, 
returning  nothing." — Progress  and  Poverty ,  book  viii,  ch.  iii^  subd.  4. 


20  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

III.     THE    SINGLE   TAX   AS   A   SOCIAL 

REFORM. 

But  the  single  tax  is  more  than  a  revenue  system. 
Great  as  are  its  merits  in  this  respect,  they  are  but  in- 
cidental to  its  character  as  a  social  reform.^'  And  that 
some  social  reform,  which  shall  be  simple  in  method 
but  fundamental  in  character,  is  most  urgently  needed 
we  have  only  to  look  about  us  to  see. 

Poverty  is  widespread  and  pitiable.  This  we  know. 
Its  general  manifestations  are  so  common  that  even 
good  men  look  upon  it  as  a  providential  provision  for 
enabling  the  rich  to  drive  camels  through  needles' 
eyes  by  exercising  the  modern  virtue  of  organized 
giving.^^     Its   occasional    manifestations   in    recurring 

31.  There  are  two  classes  of  single  tax  advocates.  Those  who  advocate  it  as  a 
reform  in  taxation  alone,  regardless  of  its  effects  upon  social  adjustments,  are  called 
"  single  tax  men  limited  "  ;  those  who  advocate  it  both  as  a  reform  in  taxation  and  as 
the  mode  of  securing  equal  rights  to  land,  are  called  "  single  tax  men  unlimited." 

32.  Not  all  charity  is  contemptible.  Those  charitable  people,  who,  knowing  that 
individuals  suffer,  hasten  to  their  relief,  deserve  the  respect  and  affection  they  receive. 
That  kind  of  charity  is  neighborliness  ;  it  is  love.  And  perhaps  in  modern  circum- 
stances organization  is  necessary  to  make  it  effective.  But  organized  charity  as  a 
cherished  social  institution  is  a  different  thing.  It  is  not  love,  nor  is  it  inspired  by  love  ; 
it  is  simply  sanctified  selfishness,  at  the  bottom  of  which  will  be  found  the  blas- 
phemous notion  that  in  the  economy  of  God  the  poor  are  to  be  forever  with  us  that 
the  rich  may  gain  heaven  by  alms-giving. 

Suppose  a  hole  in  the  sidewalk  into  which  passers-by  continually  fall,  breaking 
their  arms,  their  legs,  and  sometimes  their  necks.  We  should  respect  charitable 
people  who,  without  thought  of  themselves,  went  to  the  relief  of  the  sufferers,  binding 
the  broken  limbs  of  the  living,  and  decently  burying  the  dead.  But  what  should 
we  say  of  those  who,  when  some  one  proposed  to  fill  up  the  hole  to  prevent  further 
suffering,  should  say,  "  Oh,  you  mustn't  fill  up  that  hole !  Whatever  in  the  world 
should  we  charitable  people  do  to  be  saved  if  we  had  no  broken  legs  and  arms  to  bind, 
and  no  broken-necked  people  to  bury  ?  " 

Of  some  kinds  of  charity  it  has  been  well  said  that  they  are  "  that  form  of  self- 
righteousness  which  makes  us  give  to  others  the  things  that  already  belong  to  them." 
They  suggest  the  old  nursery  rhyme  : 

"  There  was  once  a  considerate  crocodile. 
Which  lay  on  a  bank  of  the  river  Nile. 
And  he  swallowed  a  fish,  with  a  face  of  woe, 
While  his  tears  flowed  fast  to  the  stream  below. 
'  I  am  mourning,'  said  he.  'the  untimely  fate 
Of  the  dear  little  fish  which  I  just  now  ate.'  " 

Read  Chapter  vlii  of  "Social  Problems,"  by  Henry  George,  entitled,  "  That  We 
All  Might  be  Rich." 


POVERTY.  21 

periods  of  ''hard  times  "^^  are  like  epidemics  of  a  viru- 
lent disease,  which  excite  even  the  most  contented  to 
ask  if  they  may  not  be  the  next  victims.  Its  spasms 
of  violence  threaten  society  with  anarchy  on  the  one 
hand,  and,  through  panic-stricken  efforts  at  restraint, 
with  loss  of  liberty  on  the  other.  And  it  persists  and 
deepens  despite  the  continuous  increase  of  wealth- 
producing  power.^' 

33.  Differences  between  "  hard  times  "  and  "  good  times  "  are  but  differences  in 
degrees  of  poverty  and  in  the  people  who  suffer  from  it.  Times  are  always  hard  with 
the  multitude.  But  the  voice  of  the  multitude  is  too  weak  to  be  heard  at  ordinary 
times  through  the  ordinary  trumpets  of  public  opinion.  They  are  not  regarded  nor  do 
they  regard  themselves  as  people  of  any  importance  in  the  industrial  world,  so  long  as 
the  general  wheels  of  business  revolve.  It  is  only  when  poverty  has  eaten  its  way 
up  through  the  various  strata  of  struggling  and  pinching  and  squeezing  and  squirming 
humanity,  and  with  its  cancerous  tentacles  touched  the  superincumbent  layers  of 
manufacturing  nabobs,  merchant  princes,  railroad  kings,  great  bankers  and  great  land- 
owners that  we  hear  any  general  complaint  of  "  hard  times." 

34.  "Could  a  man  of  the  last  century — a  Franklin  or  a  Priestley — have  seen, 
in  a  vision  of  the  future,  the  steamship  taking  the  place  of  the  sailing  vessel,  the  rail- 
road train  of  the  wagon,  the  reaping  machine'  of  the  scythe,  the  threshing  machine 
of  the  flail  ;  could  he  have  heard  the  throb  of  the  engines  that  in  obedience  to  human 
will,  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  human  desire,  exert  a  power  greater  than  that  of  all  the 
men  and  all  the  beasts  of  burden  of  the  earth  combined  ;  could  he  have  seen  the  forest 
tree  transformed  into  finished  lumber — into  doors,  sashes,  blinds,  boxes  or  barrels, 
with  hardly  the  touch  of  a  human  hand  ;  the  great  workshops  where  boots  and  shoes 
are  turned  out  by  the  case  with  less  labor  than  the  old-fashioned  cobbler  could  have 
put  on  a  sole  ;  the  factories  where,  under  the  eye  of  a  girl,  cotton  becomes  cloth  faster 
than  hundreds  of  stalwart  weavers  could  have  turned  it  out  with  their  hand-looms  ; 
could  he  have  seen  steam  hammers  shaping  mammoth  shafts  and  mighty  anchors,  and 
delicate  machinery  making  tiny  watches  ;  the  diamond  drill  cutting  through  the  heart 
of  the  rocks,  and  coal  oil  sparing  the  whale  ;  could  he  have  realized  the  enormous 
saving  of  labor  resulting  from  improved  facilities  of  exchange  and  communication — 
sheep  killed  in  Australia  eaten  fresh  in  England,  and  the  order  given  by  the  London 
banker  in  the  afternoon  executed  in  San  Francisco  in  the  morning  of  the  same  day  ; 
could  he  have  conceived  of  the  hundred  thousand  improvements  which  these  only 
suggest,  what  would  he  have  inferred  as  to  the  social  condition  of  mankind  ? 

"  It  would  not  have  seemed  like  an  inference  ;  further  than  the  vision  went, 
it  would  have  seemed  as  though  he  saw  ;  and  his  heart  would  have  leaped  and  his 
nerves  would  have  thrilled,  as  one  who  from  a  height  beholds  just  ahead  of  the  thirst- 
stricken  caravan  the  living  gleam  of  rustling  woods  and  the  glint  of  laughing  waters. 
Plainly,  in  the  sight  of  the  imagination,  he  would  have  beheld  these  new  forces 
elevating  society  from  its  very  foundations,  lifting  the  verj^  poorest  above  the  possi- 
bility of  want,  exempting  the  very  lowest  from  anxiety  for  the  material  needs  of 
life.  .  .  And  out  of  these  bounteous  material  conditions  he  would  have  seen  arising, 
as  necessary  sequences,  moral  conditions  realizing  the  golden  age  of  which  mankind 
have  always  dreamed.  .   .     rvlore  or  less  vague  or  clear,  these  have  been  the  hopes, 


22  OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 

That  much  of  our  poverty  is  involuntary  may  be 
proved,  if  proof  be  necessary,  by  the  magnitude  of 
charitable  work  that  aims  to  help  only  the  *'  deserving 
poor "  ;  and  as  to  undeserving  cases — the  cases  of 
voluntary  poverty — who  can  say  but  that  they,  if  not 
due  to  birth  and  training  in  the  environs  of  degraded 
poverty,"  are  the  despairing  culminations  of  long-con- 

these  the  dreams  born  of  the  improvements  which  give  this  wonderful  century 
its  pre-eminence.  .  .  It  is  true  that  disappointment  has  followed  disappointment, 
and  that  discovery  upon  discovery,  and  invention  after  invention,  have  neither 
lessened  the  toil  of  those  who  most  need  respite,  nor  brought  plenty  to  the  poor.  But 
there  have  been  so  many  things  to  which  it  seemed  this  failure  could  be  laid,  that  up 
to  our  time  the  new  faith  has  hardly  weakened.  .  .  Now,  however,  we  are  coming 
into  collision  with  facts  which  there  can  be  no  mistaking.  .  .  And,  unpleasant  as  it  may 
be  to  admit  it,  it  is  at  last  becoming  evident  that  the  enormous  increase  in  productive 
power  which  has  marked  the  present  century  and  is  still  going  on  with  accelerating 
ratio,  has  no  tendency  to  extirpate  poverty  or  to  lighten  the  burdens  of  those  compelled 
to  toil.  It  simply  widens  the  gulf  between  Dives  and  Lazarus,  and  makes  the  struggle 
for  existence  more  intense.  The  march  of  invention  has  clothed  mankind  with 
powers  of  which  a  century  ago  the  boldest  imagination  could  not  have  dreamed.  But 
in  factories  where  labor  saving  machinery  has  reached  its  most  wonderful  development 
little  children  are  at  work  ;  wherever  the  new  forces  are  anything  like  fully  utilized 
large  classes  are  maintained  by  charity  or  live  on  the  verge  of  recourse  to  it  ;  amid 
the  greatest  accumulations  of  wealth,  men  die  of  starvation,  and  puny  infants  suckle 
dry  breasts  ;  while  everywhere  the  greed  of  gain,  the  worship  of  wealth,  shows  the 
force  of  the  fear  of  want." — Progress  and  Poverty,  Introduction. 

35.  The  leader  of  one  of  the  labor  strikes  of  the  early  eighties,  a  hard-working, 
respectable,  and  self-respecting  man,  told  me  that  the  deprivations  which  he  himself 
suffered  as  a  workingman  were  as  nothing  compared  with  the  fear  for  the  future 
of  his  children  that  he  felt  whenever  he  thought  of  the  repulsive  surroundings, 
physical  and  moral,  in  which,  owing  to  his  poverty,  he  was  compelled  to  bring 
them  up. 

Professor  Francis  Wayland,  Dean  of  the  Yale  law  school,  wrote  in  the  Charities^ 
Review  for  March,  1893:  "Under  our  eyes  and  within  our  reach  children  are 
being  reared  from  infancy  amid  surroundings  containing  every  conceivable  element 
of  degradation,  depravity  and  vice.  Why,  then,  should  we  be  surprised  that  we  are 
surrounded  by  a  horde  of  juvenile  delinquents,  that  the  police  reports  in  our  cities 
teem  with  the  exploits  of  precocious  little  villains,  that  reform  schools  are  crowded 
with  hopelessly  abandoned  young  offenders  ?  How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  What 
else  could  be  expected  from  such  antecedents,  from  such  ever-present  examples 
of  riagrant  vice  ?  Short  of  a  miracle,  how  could  any  child  escape  the  moral  contagion 
of  such  an  environment  ?  How  could  he  retain  a  single  vestige  of  virtue,  a  single 
honest  impulse,  a  single  shred  of  respect  for  the  rights  of  others,  after  passing  through 
such  an  ordeal  of  iniquity  ?  What  is  there  left  on  which  to  build  up  a  better 
character?  " 

In  the  Arena  of  July,  1893,  Helen  Campbell  says  :  "  It  would  seem  at  times  as 
if  the  workshop  meant  only  a  form  of  preparation  for  the  hospital,  the  workhouse  and 


POVERTY.  23 

tinued  struggles  for  respectable  independence  ?  '*  How 
can  we  know  that  they  are  not  essentially  like  the  rest 
— involuntary  and    deserving  ?     It   is  a  profound  dis- 

the  prison,  since  the  workers  therein  become  inoculated  with  trade  diseases,  mutilated 
by  trade  appliances,  and  corrupted  by  trade  associates  till  no  healthy  fiber,  mental, 
moral,  or  physical,  remains." 

Such  testimony  is  abundant.  But  no  further  citation  is  necessary  to  arouse  the 
conscience  of  the  merciful  and  the  just,  and  any  amount  of  proof  would  not  affect 
those  self-satisfied  mortals  whom  Kipling  describes  when  he  says  that  "  there  are  men 
who,  when  their  own  front  doors  are  closed,  will  swear  that  the  whole  world's 
warm." 

36.  Some  years  ago  a  gentleman,  now  well  and  favorably  known  in  New  York 
public  life,  told  me  of  a  ragged  tramp  whom  he  had  brought,  more  to  gratify  a  whim 
perhaps  than  in  any  spirit  of  philanthropy,  from  a  neighboring  camp  of  tramps  to  his 
house  for  breakfast.  After  breakfast  the  host  asked  his  guest,  in  the  course  of  con- 
versation, why  he  lived  the  life  of  a  tramp.  This  in  substance  was  the  tramp's 
reply  : 

"  I  am  a  mechanic  and  used  to  be  a  good  one,  though  not  so  exceptionally  good  as 
to  be  safe  from  the  competition  of  the  great  class  of  average  workers.  I  had  a  family — a 
wife  and  two  children.  In  the  hard  times  of  the  seventies  I  lost  my  job.  For  a  while 
we  lived  upon  our  little  savings  ;  but  sickness  came  and  our  savings  were  used  up. 
My  wife  and  children  died.  Everything  was  gone  but  self-respect.  Then  I  traveled, 
looking  for  work  which  could  not  be  had  at  home.  I  traveled  afoot  ;  I  could  afford 
no  other  way.  For  days  I  hunted  for  work,  begging  food  and  sleeping  in  barns  or 
under  trees  ;  but  no  work  could  I  get.  Once  or  twice  I  was  arrested  as  a  vagrant. 
Then  I  fell  in  with  a  party  of  tramps  and  with  them  drifted  into  the  city.  Winter 
came  on.  I  still  had  a  desire  to  regain  my  old  place  as  a  self-respecting  man,  but 
work  was  scarce  and  nothing  that  I  could  do  could  I  find  to  do,  except  some  little 
job  now  and  then  which  was  given  to  me  as  pennies  are  given  to  beggars.  I  slept 
mostly  in  station  houses.  Part  of  the  time  I  was  undergoing  sentence  for  vagrancy. 
In  the  spring  I  tramped  again.  But  now  I  did  not  hunt  for  work.  My  self-respect 
was  gone  so  completely  that  I  had  no  ambition  to  regain  it.  I  was  a  loafer  and  a  jail- 
bird. I  had  no  family  to  support,  and  I  had  found  that,  barring  the  question  of  self- 
respect,  I  was  about  as  well  off  as  were  average  workmen.  Afteryears  of  tramping  this 
opinion  is  unchanged.  I  am  always  sure  of  enough  to  eat  and  a  place  to  sleep  in — 
not  very  good  often,  but  good  enough.  I  should  not  be  sure  of  that  if  I  were  a 
workingman.  I  might  lose  my  job  and  go  hungry  rather  than  beg.  I  might  be 
unable  to  pay  my  rent  and  so  be  turned  upon  the  street.  I  might  marry  again  and 
have  a  family  which  would  be  condemned  to  the  hard  life  of  the  average  workingman's 
family.  And  as  for  society,  why,  I  have  society.  Tramps  are  good  fellows — sociable 
fellows,  bright  fellows  many  of  them.  Life  as  a  tramp  is  not  half  bad  when  you  com- 
pare it  with  the  workingman's  life,  leaving  out  the  question  of  self-respect,  of  course. 
You  must  leave  that  out.  No  man  can  be  a  tramp  for  good  until  he  loses  that.  But  a 
period  of  hard  times  makes  many  a  chap  lose  it.     And  as  I  have  lost  it  I  would  rather 

be  a  tramp  than  a  workingman.     I  have  tried  both.     By  the  way,  Mr. ,  this  is  a 

very  good  cigar — this  brand  of  yours.     I  seldom  smoke  much  better  cigars." 

The  facts  in  detail  of  this  man's  story  may  have  been  false  ;  they  probably  were. 
But  so  were  the  facts  in  detail  of  Bunyan's  "Pilgrim's  Progress."  There  is,  however, 
a  distinction  between  fact  and  truth.,  and  no  matter  how  false  the  man's  facts  may 
have  been,  his  story,  like  Bunyan's,  was  essentially  true.     Much  of  the  poverty  that 


24  OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 

tinction  that  a  clever  writer  of  fiction^'  makes  when  he 
speaks  of  "  the  hopeful  and  the  hopeless  poor."  There 
is,  indeed,  little  difference  between  voluntary  and  in- 
voluntary poverty,  between  the  "  deserving  "  and  the 
"  undeserving  "  poor,  except  that  the  "  deserving  "  still 
have  hope,  while  from  the  "  undeserving  "  all  hope,  if 
they  ever  knew  any,  has  gone. 

But  it  is  not  alone  to  objects  of  charity  that  the 
question  of  poverty  calls  our  attention.  There  is  a 
keener  poverty,  which  pinches  and  goes  hungry,  but 
is  beyond  the  reach  of  charity  because  it  never  com- 
plains. And  back  of  all  and  over  all  is  fear  of  poverty, 
which  chills  the  best  instincts  of  men  of  every  social 
grade,  from  recipients  of  out-door  relief  who  dread 
the  poorhouse,  to  millionaires  who  dread  the  possi- 
bility of  poverty  for  their  children  if  not  for  them- 
selves.'^ 

It  is  poverty  and  fear  of  poverty  that  prompt  men 
of  honest  instincts  to  steal,  to  bribe,  to  take  bribes,  to 
oppress,  either  under  color  of  law  or  against  law,  and — 
what  is  worse  than  all,  because  it  is  not  merely  a  de- 
praved act,  but  a  course  of  conduct  that  implies  a  state 
of  depravity — to  enlist  their  talents  in  crusades  against 

upon  the  surface  seems  to  be  voluntary  and  undeserving  comes  from  a  growing  feeling 
among  those  who  work  hardest  that,  as  Cowper  describes  it,  they  are 

"  Letting  down  buckets  into  empty  wells, 
And  growing  old  with  drawing  nothing  up." 

At  Victoria,  B.  C,  in  the  spring  of  1894,  I  witnessed  a  canoe  race  in  which  there 
were  two  contestants  and  but  one  prize.  Long  before  the  winner  had  reached  the 
goal  his  adversary,  who  found  himself  far  behind,  turned  his  canoe  toward  the  shore 
and  dropped  out  of  the  race.  Was  it  because  he  was  too  lazy  to  paddle  ?  Not  at  all. 
It  was  because  he  realized  the  hopelessness  of  the  effort. 

37.  H.  C.  Bunner,  editor  of  Puck. 

38.  A  well  known  millionaire  is  quoted  as  saying  ;  "  I  would  rather  leave  my 
children  penniless  in  a  world  in  which  they  could  at  all  times  obtain  employment  for 
wages  equal  to  the  value  of  their  work  as  measured  by  the  work  of  others,  than  to 
leave  them  millions  of  dollars  in  a  world  like  this,  where  if  they  lose  their  inheritance 
they  may  have  no  chance  of  earning  a  decent  living." 


POVERTY.  25 

their  convictions/'  Our  civilization  cannot  long  resist 
such  enemies  as  poverty  and  fear  of  poverty  breed  ;  to 
intelligent  observers  it  already  seems  to  yield.*" 

39.  "  From  whence  springs  this  hist  for  gain,  to  gratify  which  men  tread  everything 
pure  and  noble  under  their  feet ;  to  which  they  sacrifice  all  the  higher  possibilities  of 
life  ;  which  converts  civility  into  a  hollow  pretense,  patriotism  into  a  sham,  and  religion 
into  hypocrisy  ;  which  makes  so  much  of  civilized  existence  an  Ishmaelitish  warfare, 
of  which  the  weapons  are  cunning  and  fraud  ?  Does  it  not  spring  from  the  existence 
of  want  ?  Carlyle  somewhere  saj-s  that  poverty  is  the  hell  of  which  the  modern 
Englishman  is  most  afraid.  And  he  is  right.  Poverty  is  the  open-mouthed,  relentless 
hell  which  yawns  beneath  civilized  society.  And  it  is  hell  enough.  The  Vedas 
declare  no  truer  thing  than  when  the  wise  crow  Bushanda  tells  the  eagle  bearer  of 
Vishnu  that  the  keenest  pain  is  in  povertj\  For  poverty  is  not  merely  deprivation  ;  it 
means  shame,  degradation  ;  the  searing  of  the  most  sensitive  parts  of  our  moral  and 
mental  nature  as  with  hot  irons  ;  the  denial  of  the  strongest  impulses  and  the  sweetest 
affections  ;  the  wrenching  of  the  most  vital  nerves.  You  love  your  wife,  you  love  your 
children  ;  but  would  it  not  be  easier  to  see  them  die  than  to  see  them  reduced  to  the 
pinch  of  want  in  which  large  classes  in  every  civilized  community  live  ?  .  .  .  From 
this  hell  of  poverty  it  is  but  natural  that  men  should  make  every  effort  to  escape.  With 
the  impulse  to  self-preservation  and  self-gratification  combine  nobler  feelings,  and 
love  as  well  as  fear  urges  in  the  struggle.  Many  a  man  does  a  mean  thing,  a  dishonest 
thing,  a  greedy  and  grasping  and  unjust  thing,  in  the  effort  to  place  above  want,  or 
the  fear  of  want,  mother  or  wife  or  children." — Progress  and  Poverty,  book  ix,  ch.  it- 

40.  "  There  is  just  now  a  disposition  to  scoff  at  any  implication  that  we  are  not  in 
all  respects  progressing.  .  .  Yet  it  is  evident  that  there  have  been  times  of  decline, 
just  as  there  have  been  times  of  advance  ;  and  it  is  further  evident  that  these  epochs 
of  decline  could  not  at  first  have  been  generally  recognized. 

"  He  would  have  been  a  rash  man  who,  when  Augustus  was  changing  the  Rome 
of  brick  to  the  Rome  of  marble,  when  wealth  was  augmenting  and  magnificence 
increasing,  when  victorious  legions  were  extending  the  frontier,  when  manners  were 
becoming  more  refined,  language  more  polished,  and  literature  rising  to  higher  splen- 
dors— he  would  have  been  a  rash  man  who  then  would  have  said  that  Rome  was 
entering  her  decline.     Yet  such  was  the  case. 

"And  whoever  will  look  may  see  that  though  our  civilization  is  apparently  advanc- 
ing with  greater  rapidity  than  ever,  the  same  cause  which  turned  Roman  progress  into 
retrogression  is  operating  now. 

"  What  has  destroyed  every  previous  civilization  has  been  the  tendency  to  the 
unequal  distribution  of  wealth  and  power.  This  same  tendency,  operating  with 
increasing  force,  is  observable  in  our  civilization  to-day,  showing  itself  in  every  pro- 
gressive community,  and  with  greater  intensity  the  more  progressive  the  community. 
.  .  .  The  conditions  of  social  progress,  as  we  have  traced  the  law,  are  association  and 
equality.  The  general  tendency  of  modern  development,  since  the  time  when  we  can 
first  discern  the  gleams  of  civilization  in  the  darkness  which  followed  the  fall  of  the 
Western  Empire,  has  been  toward  political  and  legal  equality.  .  .  This  tendency  has 
reached  its  full  expression  in  the  American  Republic,  where  political  and  legal  rights 
are  absolutely  equal.  .  .  It  is  the  prevailing  tendency,  and  how  soon  Europe  will  be 
completely  republican  is  only  a  matter  of  time,  or  rather  of  accident.  The  United  States 
are,  therefore,  in  this  respect,  the  most  advanced  of  all  the  great  nations  in  a  direction 
in  which  all  are  advancing,  and  in  the  United  States  we  see  just  how  much  this  tend- 
ency to  personal  and  political  freedom  can  of  itself  accomplish.   .   ,     It  is  now  ,   .    . 


26  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

But  how  is  the  development  of  these  social  enemies 
to  be  arrested  ?  Only  by  tracing  poverty  to  its  cause, 
and,  having  found  the  cause,  deliberately  removing  it. 
Poverty  cannot  be  traced  to  its  cause,  however,  with- 
out   serious    thought ;    not  mere    reading  and   school 

evident  that  political  equality,  co-existing  with  an  increasing  tendency  to  the  unequal 
distribution  of  wealth,  must  ultimately  beget  either  the  despotism  of  organized  tyranny 
or  the  worse  despotism  of  anarchy. 

"  To  turn  a  republican  government  into  a  despotism  the  basest  and  most  brutal,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  formally  change  its  constitution  or  abandon  popular  elections.  It 
was  centuries  after  Csesar  before  the  absolute  master  of  the  Roman  world  pretended  to 
rule  other  than  by  authority  of  a  Senate  that  trembled  before  him. 

"  But  forms  are  nothing  when  substance  has  gone,  and  the  forms  of  popular 
government  are  those  from  which  the  substance  of  freedom  may  most  easily  go. 
Extremes  meet,  and  a  government  of  universal  suffrage  and  theoretical  equality  may, 
under  conditions  which  impel  the  change,  most  readilj'  become  a  despotism.  For  there, 
despotism  advances  in  the  name  and  with  the  might  of  the  people.  .  .  And  when  the 
disparity  of  condition  increases,  so  does  universal  suffrage  make  it  easy  to  seize  the 
source  of  power,  for  the  greater  is  the  proportion  of  power  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
feel  no  direct  interest  in  the  conduct  of  government  ;  who,  tortured  by  want  and 
embruted  by  poverty,  are  ready  to  sell  their  votes  to  the  highest  bidder  or  follow  the 
lead  of  the  most  blatant  demagogue  ;  or  who,  made  bitter  by  hardships,  may  even 
look  upon  profligate  and  tyrannous  government  with  the  satisfaction  we  may  imagine 
the  proletarians  and  slaves  of  Rome  to  have  felt,  as  they  saw  a  Caligula  or  Nero  raging 
among  the  rich  patricians.  .  .  Now,  this  transformation  of  popular  government  into 
despotism  of  the  vilest  and  most  degrading  kind,  which  must  inevitably  result  from  the 
unequal  distribution  of  wealth,  is  not  a  thing  of  the  far  future.  It  has  already  begun 
in  the  United  States,  and  is  rapidly  going  on  under  our  eyes.  .  .  The  type  of  modern 
growth  is  the  great  city.  Here  are  to  be  found  the  greatest  wealth  and  the  deepest 
poverty.  And  it  is  here  that  popular  government  has  most  clearly  broken  down.  .  . 
In  theory  we  are  intense  democrats.  .  .  But  is  there  not  growing  up  among  us  a  class 
who  have  all  the  power  without  any  of  the  virtues  of  aristocracy  ?  .  .  .  Industry 
everywhere  tends  to  assume  a  form  in  which  one  is  master  and  many  serve.  And 
when  one  is  master  and  the  others  serve,  the  one  will  control  the  others,  even  in  such 
matters  as  votes.  .  .  There  is  no  mistJ^flpg^  it— the  very  foundations  of  society  are 
being  sapped  before  our  eyes.  .  •  It  is  shown  ru  greatest  force  where  the  inequalities 
in  the  distribution  of  wealth  are  greatest,  and  i*  shows  4tself  as  they  increase.  .  . 
Though  we  may  not  speak  of  it  openly,  the  general  faith  in  republican  institutions  is, 
where  they  have  reached  their  fullest  development,  narrowing  and  weakening.  It  is 
no  longer  that  confident  belief  in  republicanism  as  the  source  of  national  blessings  that 
it  once  was.  Thoughtful  men  are  beginning  to  see  its  dangers,  without  seeing  how  to 
escape  them  ;  are  beginning  to  accept  the  view  of  Macaulay  and  distrust  that  of  Jeffer- 
son. And  the  people  at  large  are  becoming  used  to  the  growing  corruption.  The 
most  ominous  political  sign  in  the  United  States  to-day  is  the  growth  of  a  sentiment 
which  either  doubts  the  existence  of  an  honest  man  in  public  office  or  looks  on  him  as  a 
fool  for  not  seizing  his  opportunities.  .  .  Thus  in  the  United  States  to-day  is  republi- 
can government  running  the  course  it  must  inevitably  follow  under  conditions  which 
cause  the  unequal  distribution  of  wealth." — Progress  and  Poverty^  book  x,  ch.  iv. 


THE    SOURCE   OF   WEALTH.  2/ 

study  and  other  tutoring,  but  thought. ^^  To  jump  at  a 
conclusion  is  very  likely  to  jump  over  the  cause,  at 
which  no  class  is  more  apt  than  the  tutored  class.'^  We 
must  proceed  step  by  step  from  familiar  and  indisput- 
able premises. 

I.    The  Source  of  Wealth. 


The  first  demand  upon  us  is  to  make  sure  that  we 
know  the  source  of  the  things  that  satisfy  want. ^^  But 
it  is   quite   unnecessary  to  tediously  specify  these  and 

41.  "  The  power  to  reason  correctly  on  general  subjects  is  not  to  be  learned  in 
schools,  nor  does  it  come  with  special  knowledge.  It  results  from  care  in  separating, 
from  caution  in  combining,  from  the  habit  of  asking  ourselves  tlie  meaning  of  the 
words  we  use,  and  making  sure  of  one  step  before  building  another  upon  it — and  above 
all,  from  loyalty  to  truth." — Henry  George  s  Perplexed  Philosopher^  />.  9. 

42.  *'  Harold  Frederic,  the  London  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Tlmes^ 
reports  Mr.  Gladstone  as  having  said  in  substance,  in  one  of  his  campaign  speeches, 
that  the  older  he  grew  the  more  he  began  to  conclude  that  the  highly  educated  classes 
were  in  public  affairs  rather  more  conspicuously  foolish  than  anybody  else.  Mr. 
Frederic  thinks  that  the  Tories  have  since  done  much  to  '  breed  a  suspicion  that  therein 
Gladstone  touched  the  outskirts  of  a  great  and  solemn  truth.'  But  it  needed  not  the 
action  of  the  Tories  to  breed  that  suspicion.  In  this  country  as  well  as  in  England  it 
is  patent  to  any  close  observer  that  the  highly  educated  classes,  or  to  speak  with  more 
exactness,  the  highly  I ulored  classes ,  when  compared  with  the  common  people,  are  in 
public  affairs  but  little  better  than  fools.  The  explanation  is  simple.  The  common 
people  are  philosophers  unencumbered  with  useless  knowledge,  who  look  upon  public 
affairs  broadly,  and  moralists  who  pry  beneath  the  surface  of  custom  and  precedent 
into  the  heart  of  public  questions.  The  minds  of  the  tutored  classes,  on  the  contrary, 
are  dwarfed  by  close  attention  to  particulars  to  the  exclusion  of  generals,  and  distorted 
by  such  false  morality  as  is  involved  in  tutorial  notions  regardi  g  vested  rights." — 
T/ie  Standard,  July  27, 1802. 

The  tendency  of  tutoring  to  elevate  mere  authority  above  observation  and  thought 
is  well  illustrated  by  the  story  of  two  classes  in  a  famous  school.  The  primary  class, 
being  asked  if  fishes  have  eyelids,  went  to  the  aquarium  and  observed  ;  the  senior  class 
being  asked  the  same  question,  went  to  the  library  and  consulted  authorities. 

"  One  may  stand  on  a  box  and  look  over  the  heads  of  his  fellows,  but  he  no  better 
sees  the  stars.  The  telescope  and  the  microscope  reveal  depths  which  to  the  unassisted 
vision  are  closed.  Yet  not  merely  do  they  bring  us  no  nearer  to  the  cause  of  suns  and 
animalcula,  but  in  looking  through  them  the  observer  must  shut  his  eyes  to  what  lies 
about  him.  .  .  A  man  of  special  learning  may  be  a  fool  as  to  common  relations." — 
Perplexed  Philosopher,  Introduction. 

43.  For  it  is  ability  or  inability  to  satisfy  his  wants  that  determines  whether  or  not 
a  man  is  poor.  He  who  has  the  power  to  procure  what  he  wants,  as  he  wants  it,  and 
in  satisfactory  quality  and  quantity,  is  not  poor.  No  matter  how  he  gets  the  power,, 
provided  he  keeps  out  of  the  penitentiary,  he  is  accounted  rich. 


28 


OUTLINES    (W   POST\s    LECTURES. 


trace  them  to  their  origin  in  detail.  In  searching  for 
the  source  of  one  we  shall  discover  the  source  of  all. 

As  a  common  object  of  this  kind,  the  production  of 
^vhich  is  a  familiar  process,  bread  is  probably  the  best 
example  for  our  purpose.  Let  us,  then,  carefully  trace 
bread  to  its  source.  To  make  the  results  of  our  work 
clear  to  the  eye  as  well  as  to  the  ear  we  will  construct 
a  chart  as  we  proceed.  The  chart  should  begin  with  a 
classification  of  Bread  with  reference  to  Man,  for  it  is 
as  an  object  for  satisfying  the  wants  of  man  that  we 
consider  bread  at  all.  Is  Bread  a  part  of  the  personality 
of  Man?  or  is  it  an  object  external  to  him?  That  is 
our  first  question.  The  answer  is  so  obvious  that  a 
child  could  make  no  mistake.  Bread  is  external  to 
Man.  It  should,  therefore,  be  classified  with  what 
for  brevity  we  will  call  "  External  Objects."  It  is  also 
a  product  having  certain  constituents. 

Let  us  so  arrange  the  chart  as  to  indicate  these  facts 
and  also  to  provide  a  place  for  particularizing  the  con- 
stituents of  bread  as  v.-e  ascertain  them.     Thus  : 


Now  let  the  necessary  constituents  of  bread  be  in- 
serted. Any  housevv'ife,  any  kitchen  girl,  knows  what 
they  are  as  well  as   does  the    most   expert   baker   or 


THE   SOURCE   OF   WEALTH, 


29 


learned   chemist.      They  are   named   in  the   place  re- 
served for  them  in  the  chart : 


laC'                                    lit"'"" 

A  BAKER 

l\   LUI      LAND   g^^^(5  jg    jy^i^.p  (jfj 

AN  OVEN 

£xterncrl  Ol'/ects 

A  riRE 

BREAD 

r.ouR 

YEAST 

SALT 

WATER 

I 

In  respect  of  Man  the  constituents  of  Bread  all  fall 
into  two  general  classes  :  Man,  and  objects  that  are 
external  to  him— or,  briefly,  External  Objects.     Thus  : 


yM''' 

.til""" 

A  BAKER 

A  LOT-' land' 

Class' 

...  /ian 

BRCAD 

AN  OVEN 
A  EIRE 
FLOUR 

YEAST 
SALT 

£xt(rn(rl  Ol'/ecti 

WATER 

4'-^   OF  THE 


30 


OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


While  all  these  External  Objects  are  alike  in  the  one 
particular  that  they  are  external  to  Man,  some  of  them 
may  differ  from  others  in  respects  which,  for  clear 
thinking,  must  be  distinguished.  Compare  the  first 
two  External  Objects — the  lot  of  land  and  the  oven — 
and  a  radical  difference  at  once  appears.  The  lot  of 
land  is  a  natural  object.  The  oven  is  an  artificial 
object.  The  lot  exists  independently  of  man's  art ; 
the  oven  can  have  no  existence  whatever  as  an  oven 
but  for  man's  art.**  And  when  the  remaining  External 
Objects  are  considered  the  same  difference  appears. 
All  of  them.  Bread  included,  differ  from  the  lot  of  land 
precisely  as  the  oven  does  ;  they  are  artificial.  Let 
us  note  this  difference  upon  our  chart : 


proci^ 


cl 


Co"^ 


jiu«nli 


ticalion 


f^?^  tenia  I   Olr/ects 

BREAD 


l\V<S\''Vm"-^Muj:2l 

»     External    Olyecti 

AN  OVEN 

A  fire: 
riouR 

YEAST 

SALT 

WATER 


(7rtificial 
JExlernal     Ol^/ectr 


44.  This  difference  is  frequently  ignored,  even  by  political  economists  ;  but  it  is 
plain  to  any  intelligent  mind  that  no  reasoning  can  be  trusted  which  does  not  dis- 
tinguish a  difference  so  radical. 

45.  As  to  the  flour  and  the  yeast,  there  is  no  doubt  of  this.  And  though  not  so 
obvious,  it  is  equally  true  of  the  fire,  vi'hich  but  for  the  art  of  man  would  not  exist  in 
the  oven  ;  of  the  water,  which  but  for  that  would  not  be  at  hand  ;  and  of  the  salt, 
which  without  man's   art  would  be  neither  in  proper  form  nor  place.     It  follows  that, 


THE   SOURCE   OF   WEALTH. 


31 


It  is  no  longer  necessary  to  name  the  specific  con- 
stituents of  Bread,  and  we  may  simplify  the  chart  by 
erasing  them,  together  with  the  word  "  bread  "  itself, 
retaining  only  the  class  names.  It  will  be  more  appro- 
priate, too,  if  we  substitute  the  term  ''  factors  "  for  the 
term  "  classification."     Thus  : 


f^CO 


i^ 


ci 


.rj:IO' 


; 


J^an 


jV^ff/ra/  Hxtcrr^al  Oiyerts 

artificial  Exter/ial  0/yfct} 


Grave  danger  of  confusion  here  arises.  Artificial 
•Objects,  it  will  be  seen,  are  classified  both  as  the  "  prod- 
uct "  and  as  a  ''factor."  Yet  it  cannot  be  that  any 
factor  of  a  product  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  product ; 
there  is  surely  some  difference  which  we  should  try  to 
■discover. 

Turn  to  the  chart  on  page  30,  which  specifies  the 
artificial  constituents  of  Bread,  namely:  oven,  fire, 
flour,  yeast,  salt,  water.  How  do  these  artificial  factors 
differ  from  the  artificial  product,  bread  ?  Simply  in 
this,  that  the  artificial  factors  are  unfinished  bread, 
while  the  product   is  finished  bread. *^     The  difference, 

•either  as  to  form  or  place  or  both,  all  the   external  objects,  except  the  lot  of   land,  are 
artificial.     The  bread  itself  is  of  course  artificial. 

46.  It  is  because  man  desires  bread  that  he  constructs  ovens,  builds  fires  in  them, 
grinds  flour,  digs  or  evaporates  salt,  prepares  yeast,  or  carries  water  to  the  dough- 
trough.  And  going  farther  back,  it  is  because  he  desires  bread  that  he  raises  grain, 
■erects  mills,  and   produces  machinery  for  bread-making.     This  is  plain   enough  in  a 


32 


OUTLINES   OF   POST'S    LECTURES. 


then,  between  artificial  objects  as  a  factor,  and  artificial 
objects  as  a  final  product,  is  that  the  former  are  un~ 
finished  and  the  latter  are  finished.  Let  us  note  the 
distinction : 


yv 


.cfiic^' 


/^an 


T 


ac^'^' 


/Vaturai  Extcrml  0^/cc/s 


The  language  of  the  chart  may  now  be  supple- 
mented with  the  technical  terms  that  political  econ^ 
omists  adopt,  which,  when  comprehended  and  used 
with    discrimination,   distinguish    the    differences    we 

community  of  one  like  that  of  Robinson  Crusoe.  But  it  is  just  as  true  in  a  community 
of  millions.  In  the  community  of  one  the  solitary  individual  performs  all  the  steps 
necessary  to  produce  bread  because  he  wants  bread.  In  the  great  society  individuals 
divide  their  work,  some  doing  one  part  and  others  other  parts  ;  but  the  motive,  still 
the  same,  is  the  desire  of  the  community  for  bread.  All  the  processes  of  industry  ta 
the  extent  that  they  are  directed  to  the  production  of  bread,  whether  tliey  be  in  the 
departments  of  mining,  of  lumbering,  of  railroading,  of  navigation,  of  engineering,  of 
farming,  of  storekeeping,  of  baking,  or  what  not,  are  steps  or  stages  in  bread-making  ; 
and  every  artificial  object  produced  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  bread-making  is  to 
that  extent  unfinished  bread.  But  bread  itself,  from  the  time  it  comes  into  the 
possession  of  the  consumer  (for  it  is  not  complete  until  the  final  deliverer  has  accom- 
plished his  work  regarding  it),  is  a  finished  object.  The  essential  difference,  then, 
between  the  artificial  objects  that  are  classified  as  "  product  "  and  those  that  are 
classified  as  "  factors  "  is  that  the  former  are  finished  and  the  latter  are  unfinished. 

Professor  Marshall  (,I/rtri-/^rt//V /*>-/«.,  hook  ii^  ch.  ///".)  divides  artificial  objects 
into  "goods  of  the  first  order,  which  satisfy  wants  directly,  such  as  food,  clothing,  etc.- 
goods  of  the  second  order,  such  as  flour  mills,  which  satisfy  wants,  not  directly  but 
indirectly,  by  contributing  toward  the  production  of  goods  of  the  first  order";  and 
"goods  of  the  third  order,"  under  which  he  arranges  "all  things  that  arc  used  for 
making  goods  of  the  second  order,  such  as  the  machinery  for  making  milling 
machinery."     He  says  we  might  carry  the  analj'sis  further  if  necessary.     And  so  we 


THE   SOURCE   OF    WEALTH. 


have  discovered  with  equal  precision  and  greater 
brevity  tlian  the  more  cumbrous  terms  upon  which  ^^•e 
have  so  far  rehed."'     Thus :  . 


ffO' 


40 


ct 


/7nij/>ec/  (7rtificial 

(WEALTM) 


(1- 


rlOfi 


/^an 


(LABOR) 


\ 


,^^..,.  (LAND) 
(CAPITAL) 


At  this  point  we  find  all  essential  differences  distin- 
guished. Everv  factor  of  industrv  and  every  material 
object  of  desire  that  can  be  imagined  falls  into  one  or 


might.  We  might  drag  it  out  into  an  interminable  catalogue ;  but  every  item 
would  be  an  unfinished  artificial  object,  and  for  all  purposes  of  economic  reasoning 
nothing  else.  His  own  classification  into  "consumers'  goods"  (finished  artificial 
objects),  and  ''  producers'  goods  "  (unfinished  artificial  objects)  is  complete. 

47.  It  makes  no  difference  what  terms  are  adopted,  for  they  serve  only  as  symbols  ; 
but  it  is  of  vital  importance  that  the  same  terms  shall  never  symbolize  things  that 
essentially  differ.  As  the  technical  terms  that  usage  forces  upon  us  in  connection 
with  our  subject  are  also  loose  colloquial  words,  they  are  especially  liable  to  abuse  in 
this  respect.  The  term  ''wealth"  is  a  bewildering  example.  It  has  been  used  to 
symbolize  as  of  one  class  such  diverse  things  as  building  lots,  houses,  farm  sites,  farm 
improvements,  deeds,  mortgages,  promissorj'  notes,  warehouse  receipts  and  the  goods 
they  call  for,  book  accounts,  and  slaves,  thus  confusing  three  or  four  different  kinds 
of  things,  instead  of  distinguishing  one  kind  from  all  others.  Made  to  include 
building  lots  and  farm  sites,  the  term  is  a  symbol  for  natural  objects  ;  made  to  include 
houses,  farm  improvements,  and  goods,  it  is  a  symbol  for  artifi.cial  objects ;  by- 
including  slaves  it  symbolizes  man  ;  and  by  including  deeds,  promissory  notes,  ware- 
house receipts,  and  book  accounts,  it  symbolizes  nothing  but  evidences  of  legal  title 
as  between  individual  men.  When  the  same  term  is  used  to  include  things  so  essen- 
tially different  as  natural  objects  external  to  man.  artificial  objects  external  to  man. 
man  himself,  and  indicia  of  title,  it  is  hopeless  to  attempt  to  reason  about  the  mutual 
relations  of  those  things. 


34  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

another  of  the  four  classes  of  the  chart/^  And  from 
mere  inspection  of  the  chart  we  may  see,  what  was 
promised  when  we  began  its  construction,  that  in 
searching  for  the  source  of  one  of  the  objects  that 
satisfy  human  wants  we  have  discovered  the  source  of 
all.  For  it  is  self-evident  that  the  material  wants  of 
men  are  satisfied  in  no  otlier  way  than  by  the  con- 
sumption of  finished  artificial  objects,  technically 
termed  Wealth  ;  and  the  chart  shows  that  such 
objects  have  their  source  in  a  combination  of  the  three 
"  factors,"  namely  :  (i)  the  activities  of  man,  technically 
termed  Labor;  (2)  natural  objects  external  to  man, 
technically  termed  Land  ;  and  (3)  unfinished  artificial 
objects,  technically  termed  Capital. 

But  while  these  three  factors  combined  produce  all 
the  material  objects  that  tend  to  satisfy  human  wants, 
they  do  not  constitute  the  ultiniatc  source  of  those 
objects.  Our  analysis  is  not  yet  ended  ;  our  chart  is 
still  incomplete. 

Rejection  assures  us  that  all  artificial  objects, 
finished  and  unfinished,  resolve  upon  final  analysis  into 
the  two  factors,  the  activities  of  man  and  natural  ex- 
ternal  objects  ;  or,  in  technical  language,  all  Wealth, 

4S.  For  example  :  Flour,  which  is  unfinished  bread,  and  therefore  unfinished 
wealth — Capital,  appears  upon  analysis  to  be  a  compound  of  grain,  a  mill  site,  and  a 
miller.  The  mill  site  and  the  miller  are  respectively  land  and  labor ;  but  the  grain 
and  the  mill  are  unfinished  wealth — Capital,  and  map  be  further  analyzed.  Passing 
the  mill  for  the  moment  to  analyze  the  grain,  we  find  it  composed  of  a  farmer,  a  farm 
site,  and  farming  improvements  and  implements.  The  farm  site,  like  the  mill  site,  is 
land  ;  and  the  farmer,  like  the  miller,  is  labor  ;  but  the  improvements  and  implements, 
like  the  mill  and  the  grain,  are  unfinished  wealth— Capital,  and  may  be  still  further 
analyzed.     And  so  on. 

If  analyzed  to  the  last,  every  constituent  of  bread,  and  every  constituent  of  that 
constituent,  would  resolve  into  labor  and  land.  To  follow  them  step  by  step  would 
be  tedious  work  and  require  much  special  knowledge.  It  would  involve  consideration 
of  factories  and  factory  sites,  stores  and  store  sites,  railroads  and  railroad  sites, 
mining  and  mines,  lumbering  and  forests,  rivers,  docks,  oceans,  and  ships.  But 
analysis  in  full  detail  is  not  necessary.  The  conclusion  is  self-evident  the  moment  it 
is  understood. 


THE   SOURCE   OF   WEALTH. 


35 


finished  and  unfinished,  resolves  upon  final  analysis 
into  Labor  and  Land.  Therefore,  Capital  is  in  final 
analysis  eliminated  as  a  factor  of  production.  It  ex- 
presses nothing  which  the  two  remaining  factors  do 
not  imply ;  for  it  is  by  the  conjunction  of  those  two 
factors  that  Capital  itself  is  produced.'^  Unfinished 
•artificial  objects  and  their  technical  term.  Capital, 
should,  therefore,  be  erased  from  the  chart.  Follow- 
ing is  the  result : 


yr 


j^'^ 


jEJx  tergal  O^y'ert^ 

(WEALTH) 


^flC 


ror^ 


Alan 

^     (LABOR) 

A^ati/rdi  Externa/  O/'/cch 

(LAND) 


Thus  all  artificial  objects  external  to  man — Wealth, 
are  found  to  have  their  ultimate  source  in  the  con- 
junction of  man's  activities — Labor,  with  natural 
objects  external  to  man — Land. 

49.  The  primary  error  in  all  forms  of  socialism  consists  in  ignoring  the  fact  that 
Capital  is  but  a  product  of  labor  and  land;  or  what  in  effect  is  the  same  thing,  in  dis- 
regarding the  necessary  inference  that  land  is  the  only  implement  of  labor.  Intel- 
ligent socialists  insist  that  they  do  not  ignore  it  ;  but  that,  while  acknowledging 
land  to  be  the  primary  implement  of  labor,  they  see  in  this  only  an  abstract  formula, 
having  at  the  present  stage  of  civilization  no  practical  importance.  Societj',  they  urge, 
is  impossible  without  Capital ;  and  he  who  would  live  in  society  must  have  Capital,  or 
be  the  slave  of  those  who  do  have  it.  Therefore,  they  argue,  Capital  is  in  the  social 
state  as  indispensable  as  land.  Their  reasoning  hinges  upon  the  mistaken  assumption 
that  Capital  is  an  accumulation  of  the  past  instead  of  being  a  product  of  the  present. 
As  one  socialistic  author  puts  it,  "  Though  labor  may  originally  have  preceded  Capital, 
yet  it  is  now  as  absurd  to  place  one  before  the  other  as  it  is  to  attempt  to  say  v.-hether 
the  hen  originates  the  egg  or  the  egg  the  hen."  The  explanation  of  division  of  labor 
and  trade,  the  effect  of  which  is  overlooked  by  socialistic  philosophies,  affords  a 
better  opportunity  than  the  present  for  considering  this  elementary  error  of  socialism, 
and  a  brief  discussion  of  the  subject  will  be  given  in  that  connection.     Seepost,  note  81. 


36  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

Finally,  by  dropping  the  cumbrous  language  alto- 
gether, and  using  only  the  technical  terms,  we  com- 
plete our  chart. ^^     Thus  : 


The  chart  may  be  read  as  follows : 
Wealth  is  produced  solely  by  the  application  of  Labor 
to  Land.''' 

50.  It  may  at  first  seem  like  a  great  waste  of  time  and  space  to  have  gone  through 
this  long  analysis  for  no  other  purpose  at  last  than  to  demonstrate  the  self-evident 
fact  that  land  and  labor  are  the  sole  original  factors  in  the  production  of  Wealth.  But 
it  will  have  been  no  waste  if  it  enables  the  reader  to  firmly  grasp  the  fact.  Nothing  is 
more  obvious,  to  be  sure.  Nothing  is  more  readily  af.sented  to.  Yet  by  layman  and 
college  professor  and  economic  author  alike,  this  simple  truth  is  cast  adrift  at  the  very 
threshold  of  argument  or  investigation,  with  results  akin  to  what  might  be  expected  in 
physics  if  after  recognizing  the  law  of  gravitation  its  ef^fects  should  be  completely 
ignored. 

51.  There  is  ample  authority  among  economic  writers  for  this  conclusion. 
Professor  Ely  enumerates  Nature,  Labor,  and  Capital  as  the  factors  of  production, 

but  he  describes  Capital  as  a  combination  of  Nature  and  Labor. — Elys  Introduction, 
part  z'l,  ch.  Hi. 

Say  describes  industry  as  "  nothing  more  or  less  than  human  employment  of  natural 
agents." — Say' s  Trea.,  book  /,  ch.  ii. 

And  though  John  Stuart  Mill  and  numerous  others  speak  of  Land,  Labor,  and 
Capital  as  the  three  factors  of  production,  as  does  Professor  Jevons,  most  of  them,  like 
Jevons,  recognize  the  fact,  though  in  their  reasoning  they  often  fail  to  profit  by  it> 
that  Capital  is  not  a  primary  but  a  secondary  requisite.  See  Jevotts^s  Poi.  Ec,  sees. 
16,  ig. 

Henry  George  says  :  "  Land,  labor,  and  capital  are  the  factors  of  production.     The 


THE    PRODUCTION   OF   WEALTH.  3/ 

This  is  the  final  analysis.  In  tlie  union  of  Labor, 
which  includes  all  human  effort,"  with  Land,  which 
includes  the  whole  material  universe  outside  of  man,'^ 
we  discover  the  ultimate  source  of  Wealth,  which 
includes  all  the  material  thiuL^s  that  satisfy  want.'* 
And  that  is  the  first  great  truth  upon  which  the 
single  tax  philosophy  is  built. 

2.    The  Production  of  Wealth. 

When  considered  in  connection  with  primitive  modes, 
of  production,  the  vital  importance  of  this  truth  is 
self-evident."^     If    those  modes  prevailed,  involuntary 

term  land  includes  all  natural  opportunities  or  forces  ;  the  term  labor,  all  human 
exertion  ;  andthe  term  capital,  all  wealth  used  to  produce  more  wealth.  .  .  Capital 
is  not  a  necessary  factor  in  production.  Labor  exerted  upon  land  can  produce  wealth 
without  the  aid  of  capital,  and  in  the  necessary  genesis  of  things  must  so  produce 
wealth  before  capital  can  exist." — Progress  and  Poverty,  book  /z7,  ch.  i. 

Also:  "The  complexities  of  production  in  the  civilized  state,  in  which  so  great 
a  part  is  borne  by  exchange,  and  so  much  labor  is  bestowed  upon  materials  after  they 
have  been  separated  from  the  laud,  though  they  may  to  the  unthinking  disguise,  do- 
not  alter  the  fact  that  all  production  is  still  the  union  of  the  two  factors,  land  and 
labor." — Id.,  ch.  viii. 

By  intelligent  observers  no  authority  is  needed.  In  all  the  phenomena  of  human, 
life,  whether  primitive  or  civilized,  the  lesson  of  the  chart  stands  out  in  bold  relief. 
Nothing  can  be  produced  without  Labor  and  Land,  and  nothing  can  be  named  which 
under  any  circumstances  enters  into  productive  processes  that  is  not  resolvable  into 
either  the  one  or  the  other.  To  satisfy  all  human  wants  mankind  requires  nothing  but 
human  labor  and  natural  material,  and  each  of  them  is  indispensable. 

52.  "  The  term  labor  includes  all  human  exertion  in  the  production  of  wealth." — 
Progress  and  Poverty,  book  /,  ch.  ii. 

53.  "  The  term  land  necessarily  includes,  not  merely  the  surface  of  the  earth  as 
distinguished  from  the  water  and  the  air,  but  the  whole  material  universe  outside  of 
man  himself,  for  it  is  only  by  having  access  to  land,  from  which  his  very  body  is 
drawn,  that  man  can  come  in  contact  with  or  use  nature." — Progress  and  Poverty, 
bock  /,  ch.  ii. 

54.  "  As  commonly  used  the  word  '  wealth  '  is  applied  to  anything  having 
exchange  value.  But  .  .  .  wealth,  as  alone  the  term  can  be  used  in  political  economy, 
consists  of  natural  products  that  have  been  secured,  moved,  combined,  separated,  or  in 
other  ways  modified  by  human  exertion,  so  as  to  fit  them  for  the  gratification  of  huniart 
desires." — Progress  and  Poverty,  hook  /,  ch.  ii. 

55.  If  we  imagine  upon  a  loneli'  island  a  solitary  man,  without  capital,  without 
clothing,  without  adequate  shelter,  what  would  be  our  explanation  of  his  poverty  ? 
We  certainly  should  not  say  that  it  was  caused  by  a  superabundance  of  goods — by 
over-production  ;  nor  should  we  be  any  more  likely  to  attribute  it  to  scarcity  of 
money.     We  should    first    ask   if  the   land    of  the   island   were   barren.     Upon  being 


38 


OUTLINES   OF   POSTS    LECTURES. 


pov^erty  would  be  readily  traced  either  to  direct  enslave- 
ment through  ownership  of  Labor,  or  to  indirect  enslave- 
ment through  ownership  of  Land.^^  There  could  be 
no  other  cause.     If  both  causes  were  absent,  every  indi- 

assured  that  it  would  yield  far  more  than  the  solitary  inliabitant  could  consume,  we 
should  ask  if  he  were  physically  or  mentally  incapable  of  producing  the  things 
he  required.  If  told  that  not  only  was  he  quite  capable,  but  that  in  the  years  he  had 
been  upon  the  island  he  had  continually  improved  in  industrial  knowledge,  in  inven- 
tive acuteness,  in  manual  dexterity,  and  in  muscular  power,  and  yet  that  he  was 
scarcely  if  any  better  able  to  satisfy  his  wants  than  when  first  cast  ashore,  we  might 
ask  if  he  were  lazy.  If  informed  that  he  was  not  lazy,  that  he  worked  almost  as  many 
hours  as  ever  and  quite  as  hard  and  far  more  productively,  we  should  ask  if  he  were 
the  chattel  slave  of  an  exacting  master.  Satisfied  that  this  was  not  the  case,  we  should 
then  say  : 

"  The  only  explanation  left  is  that  in  some  way  that  man's  opportunities  to  use 
the  island  are  restricted — the  Labor  of  the  island  and  the  Land  of  the  island  do  not 
freely  meet." 

And  if  we  were  thereupon  advised  that  a  neighboring  cannibal  chief,  who  claimed 
the  island  as  his  private  property,  had  granted  the  lone  inhabitant  permission  to  live, 
upon  the  sole  condition  that  he  yield  tribute  for  the  land,  and  that  the  tribute  had 
a  way  of  advancing  as  the  worker's  productive  power  increased,  we  should  understand 
the  cause  of  his  poverty.  And  we  should  advise  him  to  find  a  way  at  once  of  throw- 
ing off  the  land-owner's  yoke,  and  to  postpone  all  such  secondary  questions  as  the  money 
supply  until  their  proper  settlement  could  operate  for  his  own  benefit  instead  of  for  the 
benefit  of  the  proprietor  of  the  island. 

56.  The  ownership  of  the  land  is  essentially  the  ownership  of  the  men  who  must 
use  it. 

"  Let  the  circumstances  be  what  they  may — the  ownership  of  land  will 
always  give  the  ownership  of  men  to  a  degree  measured  by  the  necessity  (real  or 
artificial)  for  the  use  of  land.  .  .  Place  one  hundred  men  on  an  island  from  which 
there  is  no  escape,  and  whether  you  make  one  of  these  men  the  absolute  owner  of  the 
other  ninety-nine,  or  the  absolute  owner  of  the  soil  of  the  island,  will  make  no 
difference  either  to  him  or  to  them." — Progress  and  Poi'erty,  book  vii,  cJi.  ii. 

Let  us  imagine  a  shipwrecked  sailor  who,  after  battling  with  the  waves,  touches 
land  upon  an  uninhabited  but  fertile  island.  Though  hungry  and  naked  and  shelter- 
less, he  soon  has  food  and  clothing  and  a  house — all  of  them  rude,  to  be  sure,  but  com- 
fortable. How  does  he  get  them  ?  By  applying  his  Labor  to  the  Land  of  the  island. 
In  a  little  while  he  lives  as  comfortably  as  an  isolated  man  can. 

Now  let  another  shipwrecked  sailor  be  washed  ashore.  As  he  is  about  to  step  out 
of  the  water  the  first  man  accosts  him  : 

"  Hello,  there  !     If  you  want  to  come  ashore  you  must  agree  to  be  my  slave." 

The  second  replies : 

"  I  can't.     I  come  from  the  United  States,  where  they  don't  believe  in  slavery." 

"  Oh,  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  didn't  know  you  came  from  the  United  Slates.  I  had 
no  intention  of  hurting  your  feelings,  you  know.  But  say,  they  believe  in  owning  land 
in  the  United  States,  don't  they  ?  " 

"Yes." 

*'  Very  well  ;  you  just  agree  that  this  island  is  mine,  and  you  may  come  ashore 
a  free  man."' 


THE    PRODUCTION    OF   WEALTH  39 

vidual  might,  if  he  wished,  enjoy  all  the  Wealth  that 
his  own  powers  were  capable  of  producing  in  the  prim- 
itive modes  of  production  and  under  the  limitations  of 
common  knowledge  that  belonged  to  his  environm.ent." 

"  But  how  does  the  island  happen  to  be  yours  ?     Did  you  make  it  ?  " 

"  No,  I  didn't  make  it." 

"  Have  you  a  title  from  its  maker  ?  " 

"  No,  I  haven't  any  title  from  its  maker." 

"  Well,  what  is  your  title,  anyhow  ?  " 

"  Oh,  my  title  is  good  enough.     I  got  here  first." 

Of  course  he  got  there  first.  But  he  didu't  mean  to,  and  he  wouldn't  have  done  it 
if  he  could  have  helped  it.     But  the  newcomer  is  satisfied,  and  says  : 

"  Well,  that's  a  good  United  States  title,  so  I  guess  I'll  recognize  it  and  come 
ashore.     But  remember,  I  am  to  be  a  free  man." 

"  Certainly  you  are.     Come  right  along  up  to  my  cabin." 

For  a  time  the  tv/o  get  along  well  enough  together.  But  on  some  fine  morning  the 
proprietor  concludes  that  he  would  rather  lie  abed  than  scurry  around  for  his  breakfast  ; 
and  not  being  in  a  good  humor,  perhaps,  he  somewhat  roughly  commands  his  "  brother 
man  "  to  cook  him  a  bird. 

''  What  ?  "  exclaims  the  brother. 

"  I  tell  you  to  go  and  kill  a  bird  and  cook  it  for  my  breakfast." 

"That  sounds  big,"  sneers  the  second  free  and  equal  member  of  the  little  com- 
munity ;  "  but  what  am  I  to  get  for  doing  this  ?  " 

"Oh,"  the  first  replies  languidly,  "if  you  kill  me  a  fat  bird  and  cook  it  nicely, 
then  after  I  have  had  my  breakfast  off  the  bird  you  may  cook  the  gizzard  for  your  own 
breakfast.     That's  pay  enough.     The  work  is  easy." 

"  But  I  want  you  to  understand  that  I  am  not  your  slave,  and  I  won't  do  that 
work  for  that  pay.     Til  do  as  much  work  for  you  as  you  do  for  me,  and  no  more." 

"  Then,  sir,"  the  first  comer  shouts  in  virtuous  wrath,  "  I  want  you  to  understand 
that  my  charity  is  at  an  end.  I  have  treated  you  better  than  you  deserved  in  the  past, 
and  this  is  your  gratitude.  Now  I  don't  propose  to  have  any  loafers  on  my  property. 
You  will  work  for  the  wages  I  offer  or  get  off  my  land  !  You  are  perfectly  free.  Take 
the  wages  or  leave  them.  Do  the  work  or  let  it  alone.  There  is  no  slavery  here. 
But  if  you  are  not  satisfied  with  my  terms,  leave  my  island  !" 

The  second  man.  if  accustomed  to  the  usages  of  the  labor  unions,  would  probably 
go  out  and,  to  the  music  of  his  own  violent  language  about  the  "greed  of  capital,'* 
destroy  as  many  bovt-s  and  arrows  as  he  could,  so  as  to  paralyze  the  bird-shooting 
industry  ;  and  this  proceeding  he  would  call  a  strike  for  honest  wages  and  the  dignity 
of  labor.  If  he  were  accustomed  to  social  reform  notions  of  the  namby-pamby  variety, 
he  would  propose  an  arbitration,  and  be  mildly  indignant  when  told  that  there  was 
nothing  to  arbitrate — that  he  had  only  to  accept  the  other's  offer  or  get  off  his  property. 
But  if  a  sensible  man,  he  would  notify  his  comrade  that  the  privilege  of  owning  islands. 
in  that  latitude  had  expired. 

57.  While  in  the  Pennsylvania  coal  regions  a  few  years  ago  I  was  told  of  an  incident 
that  illustrates  the  power  of  perpetuating  poverty  which  resides  in  the  absolute 
ownership  of  land. 

The  miners  were  in  poverty.  Despite  the  lavish  protection  bestowed  upon  them 
by  tariff  laws  at  the  solicitation  of  monopolies  which  dictate  our  tariff  policy,  the  men 
were  afflicted  with  poverty  in  many  forms.     They  were  poor  as  to  clothing,  poor  as  to 


4.0  OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


■f 


But  in  the  civilized  state  this  principle  is  so  entangled 
in  the  complexities  of  division  of  labor  and  trade  as  to 
be  almost  lost  in  the  maze.  Many,  even  of  those  who 
recognize  it,  fail  to  grasp  it  as  a  fundamental  truth. 
Yet  it  is  no  less  vital  in  civilized  than  in  primitive 
modes  of  production. 

a.  Division  of  Labor. 

The  essential  difference  between  primitive  and  civil- 
ized modes  of  production  is  not  in  the  accumulation  of 
capital  which  characterizes  the  latter,  but  in  the  greater 
scope  and  minuteness  of  its  division  of  labor.'^  Capital 
is  an  effect  of  division  of  labor  rather  than  a  cause. 
Division  of  labor,  by  enhancing  labor  power  and  re- 
lieving man  from  the  perpetual  pursuit  of  mere  subsist- 
ence, utilizes  capital  and  makes  civilization  possible."^ 

shelter,  poor  as  to  food,  and  to  be  more  specific,  they  were  in  extreme  poverty  as  to  ice. 
When  the  summer  months  came  they  lacked  this  thing  because  they  could  not  afford 
1 1  buy,  and  they  suffered. 

Owing  to  the  undermining  of  the  ground  and  the  caving  in  of  the  surface  here  and 
there,  there  were  great  holes  into  which  the  snow  and  the  rain  fell  in  winter  and  froze, 
forming  a  passable  quality  of  ice.  Now  it  is  frequeniiy  said  that  intelligence,  industry, 
and  thrift  will  abolish  poverty.  But  these  virtues  were  not  successful  among  the 
men  of  whom  I  speak.  Thej'  were  intelligent  enough  to  see  that  this  ice  if  they  saved 
it  would  abolish  their  poverty  as  to  ice,  and  they  were  industrious  enough  and  thrifty 
enough  not  only  to  be  willing  to  save  it,  but  actually  to  begin  the  work.  Preparing 
little  caves  to  preserve  the  ice  in.  they  went  into  the  holes  after  a  long  day's  work  in 
the  mines,  and  gathered  what  so  far  as  the  need  of  ice  was  concerned  was  to  abolish 
their  poverty  in  the  ensuing  summer.  But  the  owner  of  this  part  of  the  earth — a  man 
who  had  neither  made  the  earth,  nor  the  rain,  nor  the  snow,  nor  the  ice.  nor  even  the 
hole — telegraphed  his  agent  forbidding  the  removal  of  ice  e.xcept  upon  payment  of  a 
certain  sum  per  ton. 

The  miners  couldn't  afford  the  condition.  They  controlled  the  necessary  Labor, 
and  were  willing  to  give  it  to  abolish  their  poverty  ;  but  the  Land  was  placed  beyond 
their  reach  by  an  owner,  and  in  consequence  of  that,  and  not  from  any  lack  of  intelli- 
gence, industry,  or  thrift  on  their  own  part,  their  poverty  as  to  ice  was  perpetuated. 

58.  It  is  his  failure  to  realize  this  that  accounts  for  the  theory  of  the  socialist  that 
laborers  in  the  civilized  state  are  dependent  upon  accumulated  capital  as  well  as  upon 
land  for  opportunities  to  produce.     See  ante^  note  49,  and/^j/,  note  81. 

59.  Here  are  two  men  at  a  given  point.  Each  has  an  errand  to  do  a  mile  to  the 
east,  and  each  has  one  to  do  a  mile  to  the  west.  If  each  goes  upon  his  own  errand 
each  will  travel  a  mile  out  and  a  mile  back  in  one  direction  and  the  same  in  the  other, 
making  four  miles'  travel  apiece,  or  eight  miles  in  all.     But  if  one  does  both  errands  to 


DIVISION    OF   LABOR.  4I 

The  productive  power  of  division  of  labor  may  be 
illustrated  by  considering  it  as  a  means  for  utilizing 
differences  of  soil  and  climate.  If,  for  example,  the 
soil  and  the  climate  of  two  sections  of  a  country,  or  of 
two  different  countries  (for  the  effects  of  division  of 
labor  are  not  dependent  upon  political  geography^"), 
differ  inversely,  one  being  better  adapted  to  the  pro- 
duction of  corn  than  of  sugar,  and  the  other,  on  the 
contrary,  being  better  adapted  to  the  production  of 
sugar  than  of  corn,  they  will  yield  more  wealth  in  corn 
and  sugar  with  division  of  labor  than  without  it. 

Let  us  imagine  a  Mainland  and  an  Island,  which,  as 
to  the  adaptability  of  their  soil  and  climate  to  the  pro- 
duction of  corn  and  sugar,  so  differ  that  if  the  people 
of  each  should  raise  their  own  corn  and  their  own 
sugar  they  would  produce,  with  a  given  unit  of  labor 
force,  but  22  of  Wealth — 1 1  in  corn  and  1 1  in  sugar. 
Thus  : 


CORN 

SUGAR 

TOTAL 

MANLAND 

10 

/ 

// 

ISLAND 

/ 

10 

// 

TOTAL 

// 

li 

zz 

the  east  and  the  other  does  both  to  the  west,  they  will  travel  but  two  miles  apiece,  or 
four  in  all.  By  division  of  labor  they  free  half  their  energy  and  half  their  time  for 
■devotion  to  other  work,  or  to  study,  or  to  play,  as  their  inclinations  dictate. 

60.  No  more  than  are  the  effects  of  a  healthful  climate.  Protectionists  who  argue 
■that  there  should  be  free  trade  between  villages,  cities,  counties  and  states  in  the  same 
nation,  but  protection  for  nations,  thus  making  the  effect  of  trade  to  depend  upon  the 
invisible  political  boundary  line  that  separates  communities,  are  like  the  colored 
woman  who,  when  her  house,  without  being  physically  removed,  had  been  politically 
■shifted  from  North  Carolina  to  Virginia  by  a  change  of  the  boundary  line,  expressed 


42  OUTLINES   OF  POST  S   LECTURES. 

Production  in  that  manner  would  ignore  the  oppor- 
tunities afforded  by  nature  to  man  for  utilizing  differ- 
ences of  soil  and  climate  ;  but  by  such  a  wise  division  as 
Labor  would  adopt  in  similar  circumstances,  if  unre- 
strained, the  same  unit  of  labor  force  almost  doubles 
the  product.     Thus: 


Nor  is  it  alone  because  it  utilizes  differences  of  soi! 
and  climate  that  division  of  labor  is  so  effective.  Its 
effectiveness  is  enhanced  in  still  higher  degree  by  its 
lessening  of  the  labor  force  necessary  to  accomplish  any 
industrial  result,  whether  in  mining,  manufacturing,, 
transporting,  store-keeping,  professional  employments,, 
agriculture,  or  the  incidental  occupations.  Minute 
division  of  labor,  instead  of  accounting  for  poverty  in 
the  civilized  state,  makes  it  all  the  more  unaccountable. 

b.   Trade. 

But  division  of  labor  is  dependent  upon  trade.  If 
trade  were  wholly  stopped  there  would  be  no  division 
of  labor;*'   if  it  be  interfered  with,  division  of  labor  is 

her  satisfaction  in  the  remark  that  she  was  verj'  glad  of  it,  because  she  "alius  yearn 
tail  dot  dat  yah  Nof  Kline  was  an  a'mighty  sickly  State,"  and  she  was  glad  that  she 
didn't  "  live  dyeah  no  mo  '  I  " 

6i.  Men  who  devoted  themselves  to  specialties,  unable  to  exchange  their  products 
for  the  objects  of  their  desire,  which  alone  would  be  the  motive  for  their  special  labor, 
would  abandon  specialties  and  resort  to  less  civilized  methods  of  supplying  their 
wants. 


FREE    TRADE.  43 

obstructed/^  In  the  last  preceding  chart,  which  illus- 
trates the  effect  of  division  of  labor  without  trade,  the 
Mainland  gets  20  of  corn,  but  no  sugar,  and  the  Island 
gets  20  of  sugar,  but  no  corn.  Yet  each  wants  both 
sugar  and  corn ;  and  if  they  freely  trade,  their  wants 
in  these  respects  will  be  better  satisfied  than  if  each 
raises  its  own  corn  and  sugar. 

Compare   the    first    chart    of    this   series   with    the 
following : 


63 


CORN 

SUGAR 

TOTAL 

MAINLAND 

10 

10 

^0 

ISLAND 

10 

10 

ZO 

TOTAL 

ZO 

J'O 

fo 

The  comparison""  illustrates  the  advantage  to  each 
individual,  community  and  country,  of  division  of  labor 
and  trade  over  more   primitive   modes  of  production. 

62.  Division  of  labor,  whether  adopted  to  take  advantage  of  the  different  varieties 
of  land,  or  to  secure  the  benefits  of  special  skill  in  labor,  cannot  continue  without 
trade ;  and  to  the  degree  that  trade  is  impeded,  to  that  degree  division  of  labor  will 
languish.  It  is  only  under  absolute  free  trade  between  all  people  and  in  respect  of  all 
products  that  division  of  labor  can  flourish.  Any  interference  with  it  is  economically 
an  enslavement  of  labor  in  a  degree  proportioned  to  the  degree  of  interference. 

63.  It  will  be  seen  from  this  chart  that  the  people  of  the  two  places,  by  dividing 
their  given  expenditure  of  labor  in  such  a  manner  as  to  utilize  the  natural  advantage 
peculiar  to  each  place,  secure  a  clear  profit  of  i8.  And  this  is  a  substantial  profit, 
consisting  not  merely  of  figures  upon  paper,  but  of  real  wealth — artificial  external 
objects  which  serve  to  satisfy  human  desires. 

64.  The  people  of  the  Mainland  have  now  sent  lo  of  their  corn  to  the  Island,  and 
the  people  of  the  Island  have  paid  for  it  by  sending  lo  of  their  sugar  to  the  Mainland. 

For  simplicity,  the  cost  of  effecting  the  trade  is  omitted.  It  does  not  affect  the 
principle.  If  the  cost  were  so  high  that  more  sugar  and  corn  could  be  got  without 
division  of  labor  than  with,  division  of  labor  would  be  abandoned  as  unprofitable  ;  if 
low  enough  to  admit  of  any  profit  at  all,  the  trading  would  go  on,  unless  restrained, 
precisely  as  if  it  involved  no  cost.  It  may  be  well  to  state,  however,  that  the  nearer 
we  get   to  no   cost  in    trading,  the   better   are   we  off.     Hence,  any  tariff  on    trading, 


44  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S    LECTURES. 

It  is  like  the  difference  between  raising  weights  by 
direct  application  of  power,  and  by  means  of  block  and 
tackle/' 

And  Avhat  this  series  of  charts  illustrates  regarding 
two  places  and  two  forms  of  wealth,  is  true  in  principle 
of  all  places  and  all  forms  of  wealth.  That  every  one 
is  better  served  when  each  does  for  others  what  rela- 
tively he  does  best,  in  exchange  for  what  relatively 
thev  do  best,  is  as  true  of  communities  and  nations 
as  it  is  of  individuals.  Indeed,  it  is  true  of  communi- 
ties and  nations  because  it  is  true  of  individuals ;  for  it 
is  individuals  that  trade,  and  not  communities  or  na- 
tions as  such.*^^ 

whether  domestic  or  foreign,  like  railroad  and  shipping  rates  for  freight,  is  prejudicial  ; 
for  tariffs  add  to  the  cost  of  trading  just  as  freight  rates  do.  Protection  has  that  for 
its  object.  When  it  does  not  add  enough  to  the  price  of  a  foreign  product  to  prevent 
importation  it  fails  of  its  purpose.  And  though  revenue  tariffs  have  no  such  object 
they  produce  the  same  effect,  only  in  minor  degree. 

65.  If  every  man  were  obliged,  unassisted  by  the  co-operation  of  others,  to  supply 
his  own  needsdirectly  by  his  own  labor,  few  could  more  than  meagerly  satisfy  even  the 
simplest  of  those  desires  which  we  have  in  common  with  lower  animals.  Though 
each  labored  diligently  the  aggregate  of  wealth  would  be  exceedingly  small  compared 
with  the  necessities  of  those  who  wished  to  consume  it,  while  in  variety  it  would  be 
very  limited  and  in  quality  of  the  poorest  kind.  But  by  division  of  labor,  which  has 
been  carried  to  marvelous  lengths  and  is  still  developing,  productive  power  is  so 
enormously  increased  that  the  annual  wealth  products  of  the  present  time,  in  quantity 
and  quality,  in  variety,  usefulness  and  beauty,  almost  appear  to  be  the  work  of  giants 
and  fairies. 

66.  Mankind  as  a  whole  may  be  likened  to  a  great  man,  with  eyes  to  see,  brain  to 
invent  and  direct,  nerves  for  intercommunication,  and  various  muscles  for  various 
actions.  As  different  parts  of  the  bodies  of  men  do  different  things,  each  part  con- 
tributing co-operatively  to  a  general  result,  so  it  is  with  the  body  politic,  whose  different 
parts— individual  men— contribute  in  different  ways  to  the  common  good.  Trade  is  to 
the  body  politic  what  digestion  is  to  the  physical  body.  To  prohibit  it  is  to  deprive 
the  great  man  of  his  stomach  ;  to  restrict  it  is  to  give  him  dyspepsia. 

Says  Emerson  in  the  "  American  Scholar,"  an  oration  delivered  at  Cambridge  in 
1837  :  "  It  is  one  of  those  fables  which  out  of  an  unknown  antiquity  convey  an  unlooked- 
for  wisdom,  that  the  gods,  in  the  beginning,  divided  man  into  men,  that  he  might  be 
more  helpful  to  himself  ;  just  as  the  hand  was  divided  into  fingers,  the  better  to  answer 
its  ends." 

Reflection  upon  the  labor-saving  power  of  trade  makes  it  clear  that  the  notion  of 
protectionists  that  free  trade  is  prejudicial  to  home  industry  has  no  foundation.  It 
would  interfere  with  "  home  industries  "  that  could  be  better  conducted  elsewhere  ; 
but  by   that  very  fact   it    would    strengthen    the    industries  that   belonged  at  home. 


THE    LAW   OF   LABOR.  45 

c.     The  Law  of  Division  of  Labor  and  Trade. 

Now,  what  is  it  that  leads  men  to  conform  their  con- 
duct to  the  principle  illustrated  by  the  last  chart  ?  Why 
do  they  divide  their  labor,  and  trade  its  products  ?  A 
simple,  universal  and  familiar  law  of  human  nature 
moves  them.  Whether  men  be  isolated,  or  be  living 
in  primitive  communities,  or  in  advanced  states  of  civi- 
lization, their  demand  for  consiiiuption  determifies  the 
direction  of  Labor  in  production!'^     That  is   the    law. 

When  we  decide  to  buy  foreign  goods  we  do  not  thereby  decide  to  employ  foreign 
labor  instead  of  American  labor  ;  we  decide  that  the  American  labor  shall  be  employed 
in  making  things  to  trade  for  what  we  buy,  instead  of  making  the  things  that  we  buy. 
And  we  get  a  better  net  result  or  we  wouldn't  do  it. 

Free  trade  and  labor-saving  machinery,  which  belong  in  the  same  industrial  cate- 
gory, increase  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  country  where  they  flourish.  Whether  or 
not  they  tend  to  impoverish  individuals  or  classes,  depends  upon  the  manner  in  which 
the  increased  wealth  is  distributed.  If  they  do  so  tend,  the  remedy  surely  does  not  lie 
in  the  direction  of  obstructing  trade  and  smashing  machines  so  that  less  wealth  may 
be  produced  with  given  labor,  but  in  altering  the  conditions  that  promote  unjust 
distribution. 

67.  The  term  "  production"  means  not  creation  but  adaptation.  Man  cannot  add 
an  atom  to  the  universe  of  matter  ;  but  he  can  so  modify  the  condition  of  matter,  both 
in  respect  of  form  and  of  place,  as  to  adapt  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  human  desires.  To 
do  this  is  to  produce  wealth. 

"  Consumption  "  is  the  ultimate  object  of  all  production.  We  produce  because  we 
desire  to  consume.  But  consumption  does  not  mean  destruction.  Man  has  no  more 
power  to  destroy  than  to  create.  His  power  in  consumption,  like  his  power  in  produc- 
tion, is  limited  to  changing  the  condition  of  things.  As  by  production  man  changes 
things  from  natural  to  artificial  conditions  to  satisfy  his  desires,  so  by  consumption  he 
changes  things  from  artificial  to  natural  conditions  in  the  process  of  satisfying  his 
desires. 

Production  is  the  drawing  forth  of  desired  things,  of  Wealth,  from  the  Land  ;  con- 
sumption is  the  returning  back  of  those  things  to  the  Land. 

"  All  labor  is  but  the  movement  of  particles  of  matter  from  one  place  to  another." — 
Dick's  Outlines^  p.  25. 

Production  consists  merely  in  changing  things. — Ely''s  Intro. ^  part  ii\  ch.  i : 
Mill's  Prin.,  book  /,  ch.  /,  sec.  2. 

"  As  man  creates  no  new  matter  but  only  utilities,  so  he  destroys  no  matter,  but 
only  utilities.  Consumption  means  the  destruction  of  a  utility." — Ely'' s  Intro..,  part 
z',  ch.  i,  p.  268. 

Production  means  "drawing  forth."— y^e/^«j'j  Printer,  sec.  17. 

"  Man  cannot  create  material  things.  .  .  His  efforts  and  sacrifices  result  in  chang- 
ing the  form  or  arrangement  of  matter  to  adapt  it  better  for  the  satisfaction  of 
wants." — Marshall's  Prin.,  book  ii,  ch.  Hi,  sec.  i. 

"  It  is  sometim.es  said  that  traders  do  not  produce  ;  that  while  the  cabinet  maker 


46  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

Considered  in  connection  with  a  solitary  individual, 
like  Robinson  Crusoe  upon  his  island,  it  is  obvious. 
What  he  demanded  for  consumption  he  was  obliged 
to  produce.  Even  as  to  the  goods  he  collected  from 
stranded  ships — desiring  to  consume  them,  he  was 
obliged  to  labor  to  produce  them  to  places  of  safety. 
His  demand  for  consumption  always  determined  the 
direction  of  his  labor  in  production.**  And  when  we 
remember  that  what  Robinson  Crusoe  was  to  his 
island  in  the  sea,  civilized  man  as  a  whole  is  to  this 
island  in  space,  we  may  readily  understand  the  appli- 
cation of  the  same  simple  law  to  the  great  body  of 
labor  in  the  civilized  world. ^^     Nevertheless,  the  com- 

produces  furniture,  the  furniture  dealer  merely  sells  what  is  already  produced.  But 
there  is  no  scientific  foundation  for  this  distinction." — Id. 

"  As  his  [man's]  production  of  material  products  is  really  nothing  more  than  a  re- 
arrangement of  matter  which  gives  it  new  utilities,  so  his  consumption  of  them  is 
nothing  more  than  a  disarrangement  of  matter  which  diminishes  or  destroys  its 
utilities."— A/. 

"  In  like  manner  as  by  production  is  meant  the  creation  not  of  substance  but  of 
utility,  so  by  consumption  is  meant  the  destruction  of  utility  and  not  of  substance  or 
matter." — Say^s  Trea.,  book  it,  ch.  i. 

"  All  that  man  can  do  is  to  reproduce  existing  materials  under  another  form,  which 
may  give  them  a  utility  they  did  not  before  possess,  or  merely  enlarge  one  they  may 
have  before  presented.  So  that  in  fact  there  is  a  creation  not  of  matter  but  of  utility  ; 
and  this  I  call  production  of  wealth.  .  .  There  is  no  actual  production  of  wealth  with- 
out a  creation  or  augmentation  of  utility." —  Say^s  Trea..,  book  i,  ch.  i. 

68.  It  is  highly  significant  that  while  Robinson  Crusoe  had  unsatisfied  wants  he 
was  never  out  of  a  job. 

69.  Demand  for  consumption  is  satisfied  not  from  hoards  of  accumulated  wealth, 
but  from  the  stream  of  current  production.  Broadly  speaking  there  can  be  no  accumu- 
lation of  wealth  in  the  sense  of  saving  up  wealth  from  generation  to  generation. 
Imagine  a  man's  satisfying  his  demand  for  eggs  from  the  accumulated  stores  of  his 
ancestors  !  Yet  eggs  do  not  differ  in  this  respect  from  other  forms  of  wealth,  except 
that  some  other  forms  will  keep  a  little  longer,  and  some  not  so  long. 

The  notion  that  a  saving  instinct  must  be  aroused  before  the  great  and  more  lasting 
forms  of  wealth  can  be  brought  forth  is  a  mistake.  Houses  and  locomotives,  for 
example,  are  built  not  because  of  any  desire  to  accumulate  wealth,  but  because  we  need 
houses  to  live  in  and  locomotives  to  transport  us  and  our  goods.  It  is  not  the  saving, 
but  the  serving.,  instinct  that  induces  the  production  of  these  things ;  the  same 
instinct  that  induces  the  production  of  a  loaf  of  bread. 

Artificial  things  do  not  save.  No  sooner  are  the  processes  of  production  from  land 
complete  than  the  products  are  on  their  way  back  to  the  land.  If  man  does  not  return 
them  by  means   of  consumption,  then  through  decay  they  return  themselves.     Man- 


THE    LAW  OF   LABOR.  47 

plexities  of  civilized  life  are  so  likely  to  obscure  its 
operation  and  disguise  its  relations  to  social  questions 
like  that  of  the  persistence  of  poverty  as  to  make 
illustration  desirable. 

The  following  chart  classifies  about  every  kind  of 
wealth  that  man  requires,  and  also  "  personal  ser- 
vices," which,  though  as  useful  as  wealth,  do  not  crys- 
tallize in  material  products — such  services  as  those  of 
lawyers,  barbers,  doctors,  teachers,  actors,  and  so  on : 


The  circle  of  variegated  colors  represents  the  corn- 
kind  as  a  whole  lives  literally  from  hand  to  mouth.  What  is  demanded  for  consump- 
tion in  the  present  must  be  produced  by  the  labor  of  the  present.  From  current 
production,  and  from  that  alone,  can  current  consumption  be  satisfied. 

"  Accumulated  wealth  "  is,  in  fact,  not  wealth  at  all  in  any  great  degree.  It  is 
merely  titles  to  wealth  yet  to  be  produced.  A  share  in  a  mining  company,  for  example, 
is  but  a  certificate  that  the  owner  is  legally  entitled  to  a  proportion  of  the  wealth  to  be 
produced  in  the  future  from  a  certain  mine. 

Titles  to  future  wealth  may  be  both  morally  and  legally  valid.  This  is  so  when 
they  represent  past  labor  or  its  products  loaned  in  free  contract  for  future  labor  or  its 
products  ;  for  example,  a  contract  for  the  delivery  of  goods  of  any  kind  to-day  to  be 
paid  for  next  week,  or  next  month,  or  next  year,  or  in  ten  years,  or  later. 

They  may  be  legally  but  not  morally  valid.  This  is  so  when  they  represent  the 
product  of  a  franchise  (whether  paid  for  in  labor  or  not)  to  exact  tribute  from  future 
labor;  for  example,  a  franchise  to  confiscate  a  man's  labor  through  ownership  of  his 
body,  as  in  slavery,  or  a  franchise  to  confiscate  the  products  of  labor  in  general 
through  ownership  of  land. 

Or  they  may  be  both  legally  and  morally  invalid,  as  when  they  are  obtained  by 
illegal  force  or  fraud  from  the  rightful  owner.  ^^^^^i^^^ 

"'    OF   iiiJC 


i% 


48 


OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 


mercial  reservoir  into  which  Wealth  is  poured  by  pro- 
duction, and  from  which  it  is  drawn  for  consumption, 
each  color  typifying  the  kind  of  wealth  or  service 
named  in  it.  Now,  let  us  suppose  that  Personal  Ser- 
vants tap  the  commercial  reservoir  for  food.  They  do 
it  by  applying  at  retail  stores  for  what  will  relieve  their 
poverty  as  to  food,  and  food  flows  out  to  them'"  as  indi- 
cated by  the  blue  arrow,  which  we  now  insert  in  the 
chart : 


How  would  the  outflow  of  food  affect  managers  of 
retail  stores?  Every  merchant's  ofifice-boy  knows.  It 
would  admonish  them  to  order  further  supplies  from 
wholesalers.  Wholesalers  would  fill  these  orders,  and 
replenish  their  stock  by  ordering  from  manufacturers. 
IManufacturers  would  thereupon  send  all  over  the  world 

70.  If  it  be  asked  how  Personal  Servants  can  draw  this  food  out  of  the  retail  stores 
unless  they  have  money,  let  the  questioner  inform  himself  as  to  the  ways  in  which 
business  is  done.  No  man,  unless  he  be  a  notorious  cheat,  needs  money  in  order  to 
obtain  goods  at  retail  stores,  provided  he  has  or  can  presently  get  profitable  employ- 
ment. All  he  needs  is  employment,  or  an  early  prospect  of  employment,  and  a  repu- 
tation for  honesty.  There  is  therefore  no  unwarranted  assumption  in  the  example, 
even  if  we  exclude  the  use  of  money  from  consideration.     See/>osf,  note  72. 


THE   LAW   OF    LABOR. 


49 


for  materials;  would  call  for  new  machinery  and  better 
machinery;  would  order  new  buildings  and  repair  old 
ones,  and  would  scour  the  country  for  workingmen  to 
come  into  their  factories  and  renew  their  lowered  stock 
of  goods.  Thus  all  kinds  and  grades  of  labor  that  could 
assist  in  producing  food,  from  farm  hands  to  inventors, 
from  bookkeepers  to  sailors,  would  feel  the  influence 
of  the  demand  for  food  in  a  demand  for  their  labor. 
What  Personal  Servants  really  do  in  demanding  food 
is  to  direct  the  expenditure  of  labor  to  the  production 
of  food  and  food-producing  implements  and  materials. 
Let  us  indicate  this  point  upon  the  chart  by  running 
a  blue  arrow  from  Food-makers  to  the  food  reservoir  : 


No  complaint  may  now  arise  of  lack  of  work  in  food- 
producing  lines. ^^     But  work  is  only  a  means  to  an  end. 

71.  Farmers,  millers,  bakers,  ranchers,  butchers,  fishermen,  hunters,  makers  of 
food-producing  implements,  food  merchants,  railroad  men,  sailors,  dra^^men,  coal 
miners,  metal  miners,  builders,  bankers  who  by  exchanging  commercial  paper  facilitate 
trade,  together  with  clerks,  bookkeepers,  foremen,  journeymen,  common  laborers, 
and  other  hired  workmen  in  all  these  various  branches  of  food  production,  find  work 


50  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

It  is  done  for  the  compensation  it  yields.  And  how 
are  Food-makers  to  be  compensated  ?  In  services 
from  Personal  Servants  ?  Suppose  they  are  not  in 
want  of  services.  But  they  must  be  in  want  of  some- 
thing ;  if  they  need  nothing  they  have  no  poverty  to 
relieve.  Let  it  be  clothing  that  they  lack.  Then  thev 
are  compensated  for  making  food  by  taking  clothing 
from  retail  stores  in  exchange  for  their  unpaid  claim 
against  Personal  Servants.  Clothing  thereupon  flows 
out  of  the  commercial  reservoir  to  them  as  food  flowed 
out  to  Personal  Servants;  and  with  similar  effect, 
namely,    the    setting  to   work  of   all   clothing-making 

seeking  for  them  instead  of  their  seeking  for  work.  To  specify  the  labor  that  would 
be  profitably  affected  by  this  demand  would  involve  the  cataloguing  of  all  workmen, 
all  business  men,  and  all  professional  men  who  either  directly  or  indirectly  are  con- 
nected with  food  industries,  and  the  naming  of  every  grade  of  such  labor,  from  the 
newest  apprentice  to  the  largest  supervising  employer. 

Would  not  this  be  putting  an  end  to  "  hard  times"?  For  what  is  the  most 
striking  manifestation  of  "hard  times"?  Is  it  not  "  scarcity  of  work"?  Is  it  not 
that  there  are  more  men  seeking  work  than  there  are  jobs  to  do  ?  Certainly  it  is.  And 
to  say  that,  is  not  to  limit  "  hard  times  "  to  hired  men.  The  real  trouble  with  the 
business  man  when  he  complains  of  "  hard  times  "  is  that  people  do  not  employ  him 
as  much  as  he  expects  to  be  employed.  Work  is  scarce  with  him,  just  as  with  those 
he  employs,  or  as  he  would  phrase  it,  "business  is  slack." 

Let  there  be  ten  men  and  but  nine  jobs,  and  you  have  "  hard  times."  The  tenth 
man  will  be  out  of  work.  He  maybe  a  good  union  man  who  abhors  a  "scab  "and 
will  not  take  work  away  from  his  brother  workman.  So  he  hunts  for  a  job  which  does 
not  exist,  until  all  his  savings  are  gone.  Still  he  will  not  be  a  "  scab,"  and  he  suffers 
deprivation.  But  after  a  while  hunger  gets  the  better  of  him,  and  he  takes  one  of  the 
nine  jobs  away  from  another  man  by  underbidding.  He  becomes  a  "scab."  And 
who  can  blame  him?  any  one  would  rather  be  a  "scab  "than  a  corpse.  Then  the 
man  who  has  lost  his  place  becomes  a  "scab"  too.  and  turns  out  some  one  else  by 
underbidding.  And  so  it  goes  again  and  again  until  wages  fall  so  low  that  they  but 
just  support  life.  Then  the  poorhouse  or  a  charitable  institution  takes  care  of  the 
tenth  man,  who  thereafter  serves  the  purpose  of  preventing  arise  in  wages.  Meanwhile, 
diminished  purchasing  power,  due  to  low  wages,  bears  down  upon  business  generally. 

But  let  there  be  ten  jobs  and  but  nine  men.  Conditions  would  instantly  reverse, 
Instead  of  a  man  all  the  time  seeking  for  a  job,  a  job  would  be  all  the  time  seeking  for 
a  man  ;  and  wages  would  rise  until  they  equaled  the  value  of  the  work  for  which  they 
were  paid.  And  as  wages  rose  purchasing  power  would  rise,  and  business  in  general 
would  flourish. 

If  demand  freely  directed  production,  there  would  always  be  ten  jobs  for  nine 
men,  ard  no  longer  only  nine  jobs  for  ten  men.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  while  any 
wants  were  unsatisfied. 


THE    LAW   OF   LABOR. 


51 


labor,  from  sheep-raisers  and  cotton-growers  to  sewing- 
women  and  salesmen. 

The  yellow  arrows  denote  this  : 


The  poverty  of  Food-makers  as  to  clothing  is  thus 
removed.  They  are  working  all  they  care  to  at  food- 
making,  their  own  chosen  employment,  and  they  are 
paid  in  clothing,  their  own  chosen  compensation.  So 
long  as  Personal  Servants  withdraw  food  and  Clothing- 
makers  supply  clothing,  Food-makers  cannot  be  poor. 
With  them  business  will  be  brisk,  labor  will  be  in 
demand,  and  wages  will  be  high. 

That  all  the  other  workers  may  enjoy  the  same  pros- 
perity we  shall  see  in  a  moment.  Clothing-makers 
pour  clothing  into  the  commercial  reservoir  because 
they  wish  to  take  something  out,  and  know  that  in  this 
way  they  can  get  a  larger  quantity  and  better  quality 
of  what  they  require  than  if  they  undertake  to  make 
it  themselves.  They  are  skilled  in  making  clothing; 
they  are  not  skilled  in  other  ways.     Accordingly  they 


52  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

utilize  the  claim  against  Personal  Servants,  which  has 
passed  to  their  credit  in  exchange  for  clothing,  by 
drawing  from  the  commercial  reservoir  the  particular 
commodity  they  desire.  Suppose  it  to  be  shelter. 
They  proceed  as  Personal  Servants  and  Food-makers 
have  already  done,  and  so  set  Shelter-makers  at  work. 
Shelter-makers  in  turn  utilize  the  claim  against  Per- 
sonal Servants  which  has  now  been  credited  to  them, 
by  taking  luxuries  out  of  the  reservoir.  This  sets 
Luxury-makers  at  work.  Luxury-makers  then  pass  the 
claim  over  in  exchange  for  services,  and  Personal  Ser- 
vants redeem  it  by  rendering  such  services  as  Luxury- 
makers  demand."     Everybody  is  now  paid  for  his  own 

72.  The  mechanism  of  these  exchanges  should  be  explained  : 

Personal  Servants  upon  demanding  food  may  pay  money  for  it.  The  retailers 
might  thereupon  pass  the  money  along,  and  it  would  ultimately  return  to  Personal  Ser- 
vants. Or  the  Personal  Servants  may  give  notes  payable  at  a  future  time,  which 
being  endorsed  over  would  at  last  be  redeemed  by  them  in  services.  Or  they  may 
give  checks  on  banks,  which  assumes  previous  work  done  by  them  or  the  discounting 
of  their  notes  by  the  banks.  As  the  world's  exchanges  are  almost  wholly  adjusted  by 
means  of  checks,  and  other  commercial  paper  which  is  in  economic  effect  the  same  as 
checks,  let  us  illustrate  that  mode  by  a  series  of  charts  adapted  from  Jevons. 

We  will  begin  with  two  traders,  A  and  B.  They  have  no  money,  but  every  time 
that  one  demands  anything  of  the  other  he  must  offer  in  exchange  something  that  the 
other  wants.  There  must  be  what  is  called  "  a  double  coincidence  "  of  demand  and 
supply ;  each  must  want  what  the  other  has.  This  is  primitive  barter.  It  may  be 
represented  by  the  following  chart  : 

A B 


In  the  civilized  state,  even  in  its  beginnings,  primitive  barter  must  be  obstructive 
to  trade,  and  it  gives  way  to  the  use  of  currency — some  common  medium  which  is  taken 
for  goods  not  because  the  taker  wants  it  but  because  he  knows  that  he  can  readily 
exchange  it  for  the  goods  that  he  does  want.  With  currency  in  use,  when  A  wants 
anything  of  R  he  is  not  obliged  to  find  something  that  B  wants.  All  he  needs  is  cur- 
rency.    Thus  currency  reduces  the  friction  of  trading. 

But  as  the  volume  of  trade  augments,  demand  for  currency  increases  ;  and  because 
it  is  scarce,  or  troublesome  or  dangerous  to  transmit,  or  all  together,  easier  means  of 
exchange  are  resorted  to,  and  bookkeeping  takes  the  place  of  currency  as  currency  took 
the  place  of  primitive  barter.  At  this  stage,  when  A  wants  anything  of  B,  B  charges 
him  ;  and  when  B  wants  anything  of  A,  A  charges  him.  Their  mutual  accounts  being 
adjusted,  the  small  balance  is  paid  with  currency.  Thus  the  demand  for  currency  is 
greatly  lowered  by  bookkeeping,  and  the  friction  of  trading  is  correspondingly  reduced. 


THE    LAW   OF   LABOR.  53 

products  with  the  products  of  others  ;  and  by  demand- 


Now  let  us  bring  in  two  more  traders,  C  and  D 

Ar -B 


Though  all  four  of  these  traders  keep  mutual  accounts,  the  settlement  of  balances 
requires  more  currency  than  before,  and  scarcity  of  currency,  together  with  the  danger 
and  expense  of  transmission,  evolves  an  extension  of  bookkeeping.  A  common  book- 
keeper, called  a  "  Bank,"  is  employed,  and  all  need  for  currency  disappears  r 

A. 


BANK 


Balances  are  now  settled  by  checks,  and  all  accounts  are  adjusted  in  the  central 
ledger  at  the  bank. 

But  the  introduction  of  another  group  of  traders,  another  community,  renews  the 
demand  for  currency,  and  another  bank  appears,      i  hus  : 


3 


BANK 


BAN 


And  now  the  two  banks  are  in  the  same  position  that  A  and  B  were  in  before  any 
bank  came.  They  keep  mutual  accounts,  but  they  must  have  currency  to  settle  their 
balances.  And  if  we  bring  in  more  communities  the  demand  for  currency  further  in- 
creases.    Thus  ; 


BAN 


BANK: 


BAN 


BANK 


0- 


54 


OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


ing  more  food,  Personal  Servants  may  perpetuate  the 

Now  the  four  banks  are  in  the  same  situation  that  A,  B,  C  and  D  were  in  before 
there  were  any  banks.     This  evolves  a  bank  of  banks— a  clearing-house  : 


3 


BANK 


BAN 


,BANK 


BANK 


All  necessity  for  currency  once  more  disappears. 

These  charts  illustrate  the  principle  by  which  mutual  trading  is  effected.  In 
practice,  the  need  of  currency  is  never  wholly  done  away  with,  but  the  tendency  is 
constantly  in  the  direction  of  doing  away  with  it.  And  it  is  said  that  over  ninety  per 
cent,  of  the  trading  transactions  of  the  world  are  adjusted  in  this  manner,  and  less  than 
ten  per  cent,  by  means  of  currency. 

The  clearing-house  principle  extend*  orar  the  civilized  world.  In  illustration 
of  this,  observe  the  following  chart : 


NLW  YORK 


BERLIN 


These  five  cities  are  like  the  five  banks.     The  bookkeeping  of  each  city  is  con- 


THE   LAW   OF   LABOR.  55 

interchange  indefinitely.'^  And  Personal  Servants  will 
continue  to  demand  more  food  until  their  wants  as  to 
food  are  wholly  and  finally  satisfied.''' 

ducted  by  local  banks  and  clearing-houses,  and  the  central  bookkeeping  by  those 
of  the  market  town  of  the  world,  which  at  present  is  London. 

In  this  way  the  mobility  of  labor  is  in  effect  enormously  increased.  Labor  in  every 
corner  of  the  world  is  brought  into  close  trading  relations  with  labor  everywhere  else, 
so  that  only  war,  pestilence,  protection,  and  land  monopoly  interfere  with  the  full 
freedom  of  its  movement. 

73.  Personal  Servants,  on  the  basis  of  their  employment  by  Luxury-makers, 
demand  more  food,  which  keeps  Food-makers  at  work  ;  Food-makers  demand  more 
clothing,  which  keeps  Clothing-makers  at  work  ;  Clothing-makers  demand  more 
shelter,  which  keeps  Shelter-makers  at  work ;  Shelter-makers  demand  more  luxuries, 
which  keeps  Luxury-makers  at  work  ;  Luxury-makers  demand  more  services,  which 
keeps  Personal  Servants  at  work.     And  so  on  indefinitely. 

If  now  we  add  progressive  invention,  so  that  every  one  produces  more  and  more 
wealth  with  less  and  less  labor,  instead  of  finding  poverty  upon  the  increase,  instead 
of  being  harried  by  periodical  "  hard  times,"  we  shall  find  business  brisk  and  every 
one  becoming  richer  and  richer.  That  is  to  say,  though  all  labor  less  than  before, 
each  obtains  better  results  from  others  while  giving  better  results  in  exchange. 

And  should  we  improve  the  verisimilitude  of  the  illustration  by  bringing  in  the 
fact  that  all  workers  in  civilized  society  are  specialists  in  a  much  more  minute  degree 
than  the  division  into  Clothing-makers,  Food-makers,  etc.,  would  imply — that  every  one 
who  works  does  over  and  over  some  one  thing  in  one  of  these  branches,  as  the  making 
of  shoes  or  the  baking  of  bread,  or  even  only  part  of  a  thing,  as  the  cutting  of  shoe 
soles,  and  that  while  giving  out  a  great  deal  of  his  own  product  he  demands  in  pay 
a  little  of  every  other  kind  of  product — the  same  effect  would  naturally  result. 

Every  man  who  demands  anything  for  consumption  thereby  determines  the  direc- 
tion of  labor  toward  the  production  not  only  of  that  thing,  but  also  of  all  the  artificial 
materials  and  implements,  from  the  simplest  tool  to  the  most  expensive  and  complex 
machine,  that  are  used  in  its  production.  The  actual  process  is  much  more  intricate 
than  that  of  the  charts,  but  the  charts  illustrate  the  principle  so  that  any  intelligent 
person  who  understands  them  can  apply  it  to  the  most  complex  affairs  of  industrial  life. 

"  This  principle  is  so  simple  and  obvious  that  it  needs  no  further  illustration,  yet  in 
its  light  all  the  complexities  of  our  subject  disappear,  and  we  thus  reach  the  same  view 
of  the  real  objects  and  rewards  of  labor  in  the  intricacies  of  modern  production  that  we 
gained  by  observing  in  the  first  beginnings  of  society  the  simpler  forms  of  production 
and  exchange.  We  see  that  now,  as  then,  each  laborer  is  endeavoring  to  obtain  by  his 
exertions  the  satisfaction  of  his  own  desires  ;  we  see  that  although  the  minute  division 
of  labor  assigns  to  each  producer  the  production  of  but  a  small  part,  or  perhaps  nothing 
at  all,  of  the  particular  things  he  labors  to  get,  yet,  in  aiding  in  the  production  of  what 
other  producers  want,  he  is  directing  other  labor  to  the  production  of  the  things 
he  wants — in  effect,  producing  them  himself.  And  thus,  if  he  makes  jackknives  and 
eats  wheat,  the  wheat  is  really  as  much  the  produce  of  his  labor  as  if  he  had  grown  it 
for  himself  and  left  wheat-growers  to  make  their  own  jackknives." — Progress  and 
Poverty^  book  i,  ch.  iv. 

74.  There  is  no  end  to  man's  wants. 

"  The  demand  for  quantity  once  satisfied,  he  seeks  quality.  The  very  desires  that 
he  has  in  common  with  the  beast  become  extended,  refined,  exalted.  It  is  not  merely 
hunger,  but   taste,  that  seeks  gratification  in  food  ;    in  clothes,  he   seeks   not   merely 


56 


OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 


Let  the  chart  be  now  advanced  to  show,  in  accor- 
dance with  the  text,  the  perpetual  flow  of  trade  which 
this  action  and  reaction  of  demand  and  supply 
maintain  : 


Thus  each  class  of  workers  by  its  demands  for  con- 
sumption determines  the  direction  of  the  labor  of 
some  other  class.  And  in  final  analysis  every  person 
by  his  own  demands  for  consumption  determines  the 
direction  of  his  own  labor  in  production  as  truly  as 
Crusoe  determined   his  ;  for  the  demands  of   Personal 

comfort,  but  adornment  ;  the  rude  shelter  becomes  a  house  ;  the  undiscriminating 
sexual  attraction  begins  to  transmute  itself  into  subtle  influences,  and  the  hard  and 
common  stock  of  animal  life  to  blossom  and  to  bloom  into  shapes  of  delicate  beauty." — 
Progress  and  Poverty,  book  I'i,  ch.  Hi. 

A  labor  agitator  was  arguing  the  labor  question  with  a  rich  man,  the  judge  of  his 
county,  when  the  judge  as  a  clincher  asked  : 

"  What  do  workingmen  want,  anyway,  that  they  haven't  got  ?  " 

Promptly  the  agitator  replied  with  the  counter-question  : 

"  Judge,  what  have  you  got  that  you  don't  want  ?  " 


THE   LAW   OF   LABOR.  5/ 

Servants  for  food,  of  Food-makers  for  clothing,  of 
Clothing-makers  for  shelter,  of  Shelter-makers  for  lux- 
uries, and  of  Luxury-makers  for  services,  by  enabling 
all  to  procure  what  they  require  in  exchange  for  what 
is  demanded  of  them,  determine  each  as  to  the  kind  of 
employment  to  adopt.'" 

75.  Regarding  society  as  a  unit,  the  operation  of  the  law  is  no  less  indisputable  in 
social  than  in  solitary  conditions.  The  demands  of  society  as  a  whole  determine  the 
degree  of  activity  for  each  department  of  production,  much  as  Robinson  Crusoe's 
demand  for  baskets  imposed  greater  activity  upon  his  arms  than  upon  his  legs,  or  as 
his  demand  for  goats  imposed  greater  activity  upon  his  legs  than  upon  his  arms. 

But  it  is  not  necessary  to  regard  society  as  a  unit  in  order  to  see  that  in  the  social 
as  in  the  solitary  state,  labor  in  production  is  expended  in  the  direction  of  demand  for 
consumption.  Each  individual,  in  the  social  as  in  the  solitary  state,  produces  the 
identical  wealth  that  he  demands  for  consumption.  The  man,  for  example,  who  wants 
a  coat,  and  to  get  it  makes  shoes  that  he  does  not  want,  but  with  which  he  hires  some 
one  to  make  him  a  coat,  really  produces  the  coat ;  while  he  who  wants  shoes,  and  to 
get  them  makes  coats  which  he  does  not  want  but  which  he  trades  for  shoes,  really 
produces  shoes.  Similarly,  through  the  whole  range  of  industry,  each  individual  hires 
other  individuals  to  do  what  he  wants  done,  and  pays  for  it  by  doing  for  others  what 
they  want  done.  The  condition  is  one  of  reciprocal  hiring,  and  under  the  common- 
sense  legal  maxim,  qui  facit per  alium /acit pe7-  se  (what  one  does  by  another  he  does 
himself^,  as  sound  in  economics  as  in  jurisprudence,  each  laborer,  by  inducing  others  to 
make  the  things  that  he  demands,  in  order  to  exchange  them  for  what  he  makes,  really 
produces  what  he  demands.  But  for  his  demands,  supplemented  by  his  labor,  these 
things  would  not  be  produced. 

True  it  is  that  in  general  trade  goods  are  usually  made  in  advance  of  specific 
demand  for  them.  But  it  would  be  superficial  reasoning  to  infer  from  this  that  produc- 
tion determines  consumption  instead  of  being  determined  by  it.  The  collection  of 
commodities  in  the  market  is  analogous  to  the  collection  of  water  in  reservoirs  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  inhabitants  of  cities.  Water  is  so  collected  in  advance  of  specific 
demand,  not  to  induce  the  people  to  consume  water,  but  because,  being  accustomed  to 
consuming  water,  they  make  a  steady  demand  for  it.  And  this  demand  determines  the 
supply.  There  are  large  reservoirs  for  large  cities  and  small  ones  for  small  cities.  So 
with  the  commercial  reservoir.  Stores  are  filled  with  goods  in  advance  of  specific 
demand,  not  to  induce  demand  but  in  obedience  to  it.  There  is  an  approximate  con- 
stancy to  the  demand  for  wealth,  upon  which  labor  relies,  and  in  consequence  of  which 
wealth  is  continually  in  process  of  completion.  Though  orders  be  supplied  from  exist- 
ing stock,  the  stock  is  at  once  replenished  in  accordance  with  the  demand  upon  it. 
And  this  is  equivalent  to  the  proposition  that  demand  for  consumption  determines  the 
direction  in  which  labor  will  be  expended  in  production.  For  it  makes  no  difference  in 
economic  principle  whether  a  shoe  dealer  takes  his  customer's  measure  and  makes  him 
a  pair  of  shoes,  or  keeps  shoes  in  stock,  and  when  he  sells  a  pair  buys  another  like  them. 
In  either  case  the  shoe  dealer  is  providing  shoes  pursuant  to  order.  In  the  one,  he 
anticipates  the  order  and  has  the  goods  ready  when  they  are  called  for ;  in  the  other, 
he  obliges  his  customer  to  wait  until  the  goods  can  be  made. 

Though   production   may   often    seem  to  precede   demand,    as    when    goods  are 
stored  months  in  advance  y  f  any  possible  demand  for  consumption,  and  may  some- 


58 


OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


Let  US  now  complete  this  chart.  When  we  began 
it  a  distinction  was  noted  between  Personal  Servants, 
who  render  mere  intangible  services,  and  the  other 
classes,  who  produce  tangible  wealth.  But  essentially 
there  is  no  difference.  By  referring  to  the  chart  and 
observing  the  course  of  the  arrows,  Food-makers  are 
seen  working  for  Personal  Servants  precisely  as  Per- 
sonal Servants  work  for  Luxury-makers.  We  may 
therefore  abandon  the  distinction.  This  makes  it  no 
longer  necessary  to  mention  particular  classes  of  prod- 
ucts in  the  chart  ;  it  is  enough  to  distinguish  the  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  labor.''^     Thus  : 


times  actually  precede  it,  as  when  a  new  nostrum  is  placed  upon  the  market,  the  fact 
remains  that  production  in  any  direction  rises  and  falls  with  the  rise  and  fall  of 
demand  for  consumption  ;  in  other  words,  is  determined  by  that  demand. 

And  this  law  regulates  the  supply  of  wealth  not  only  as  to  quantity,  but  also  as  to 
quality  and  variety. 

76.  "  This,  then,  we  may  say  is  the  great  law  which  binds  society—'  service  for 
service.'  " — Dick's  Outlines,  J>.  9. 


DEPENDENCE  OF  LABOR  UPON  LAND.      59 

For  simplicity  the  workers  have  been  divided  into 
great  classes,  and  each  class  has  been  supposed  to 
serve  only  one  other  class.  But  the  actual  currents  of 
trade  are  much  more  complex.  It  would  be  practically 
impossible  to  follow  them  in  detail,  or  to  illustrate 
their  particular  movements  in  any  simple  way.  And 
it  is  unnecessary.  The  principle  illustrated  in  the 
chart  is  the  principle  of  all  division  of  labor  and  trade, 
however  minute  the  details  and  intricate  the  move- 
ment ;  and  any  person  of  ordinary  intelligence  who 
wishes  to  understand  will  need  only  to  grasp  the  prin- 
ciple as  illustrated  by  the  chart  to  be  able  to  apply  it 
to  the  experiences  of  every-day  industrial  life.  All 
legitimate  trade  is  the  interchange  of  Labor  for 
Labor." 

d.     Depeytdence  of  Labor  upon  Land. 

We  have  now  seen  that  division  of  labor  and  trade, 
the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  civilization,  not 
only  increase  labor  power,  but  grow  out  of  a  law  of 
human  nature  which  tends,  by  maintaining  a  perpetual 

77.  In  the  light  of  this  principle  how  absurd  are  some  of  the  explanations  of  hard 
times. 

Overproduction  !  when  an  infinite  variety  of  wants  are  unsatisfied  which  those 
who  are  in  want  are  anxious  and  able  to  satisfy  for  one  another.  Hatters  want  bread, 
and  bakers  want  hats,  and  farmers  want  both,  and  they  all  want  machines,  and  ma- 
chinists want  bread  and  hats  and  machines,  and  so  on  without  end.  Yet  while  men 
are  against  their  will  in  partial  or  complete  idleness,  their  wants  go  unsatisfied  !  Since 
producers  are  also  consumers,  and  production  is  governed  by  demand  for  consumption, 
there  can  be  no  real  overproduction  until  demand  ceases.  The  apparent  overproduc- 
tion which  we  see — overproduction  relatively  to  "  effective  demand  " — is  in  fact  a  con- 
gestion of  some  things  due  to  an  abnormal  underproduction  of  other  things,  the  under- 
production being  caused  by  obstructions  in  the  way  of  labor. 

Scarcity  of  capital !  when  makers  of  capital  in  all  its  forms  are  involuntarily  idle. 
Scarcity  of  capital,  like  scarcity  of  money,  is  only  an  expression  for  lack  of  employ- 
ment. But  why  should  there  be  any  lack  of  employment  while  men  have  unsatisfied 
wants  which  they  can  reciprocally  satisfy  ? 

Too  much  competition  /  when  competition  and  freedom  are  the  same.  It  is  not 
freedom  but  restraint,  not  competition  but  protection,  that  obstructs  the  action  and  re- 
action of  demand  and  supply  which  we  have  illustrated  in  the  chart. 


6o 


OUTLINES   OF   POST'S    LECTURES. 


revolution  of  the  circle  of  trade,  to  cause  opportunities 
for  mutual  employment  to  correspond  to  desire  for 
wealth.  Surely  there  could  be  no  lack  of  employment 
if  the  circle  flowed  freely  in  accordance  with  the  prin- 
ciple here  illustrated  ;  work  would  abound  until  want 
was  satisfied.  There  must  therefore  be  some  obstruc- 
tion. That  indirect  taxes  hamper  trade,  we  have 
already  seen  ;'^  but  there  is  a  more  fundamental  ob- 
struction. As  we  learned  at  the  outset,  all  the  material 
wants  of  men  are  satisfied  by  Labor  from  Land.  Even 
personal  services  cannot  be  rendered  without  the  use 
of  appropriate  land.'^  Let  us  then  introduce  into  the 
preceding  chart,  in  addition  to  the  different  classes  of 
Labor,  the  corresponding  classes  of  Land-owning  inter- 
ests, indicating  them  by  black  balls : 


78.  See  avte,  pp.  5,  6  and  16. 

79.  Demand  for  food  is  not  only  demand  for  all  kinds  and  grades  of  Food-makers, 


LABOR  INTERESTS  V.    LANDED  INTERESTS.    6 1 

Every  class  of  Labor  has  now  its  own  parasite. 

The  arrows  which  run  from  one  kind  of  Labor  to  an- 
other, indicating  an  out-flow  of  service,  are  respectively 
offset  by  arrows  that  indicate  a  corresponding  in-flow 
of  service ;  but  the  arrows  that  flow  from  the  various 
classes  of  Labor  to  the  various  Land-owning  interests 
are  offset  by  nothing  to  indicate  a  corresponding  re- 
turn. What  possible  return  could  those  interests 
make  ?  They  do  not  produce  the  land  which  they 
charge  laborers  for  using  ;  nature  provides  that.  They 
do  not  give  value  to  it ;  Labor  as  a  whole  does  that. 
They  do  not  protect  the  community  through  the  police, 
the  courts,  or  the  army,  nor  assist  it  through  schools 
and  post  offices ;  organized  society  does  that  to  the 
extent  to  which  it  is  done,  and  the  Land-owning  inter- 
ests contribute  nothing  toward  it  other  than  a  part  of 
what  they  exact  from  Labor.'"  As  between  Labor 
interests  and  Land-owning  interests  the  arrows  can  be 
made  to  run  only  in  the  one  direction. 

Now,  suppose  that  as  productive  methods  improve, 
the  exactions  of  the  Land-owning  interests  so  expand 
— so  enlarge  the  drain  from  Labor — as  to  make  it 
increasingly  difficult  for  any  of  the  workers  to  obtain 
the  Land  they  need  in  order  to  satisfy  the  demands 
made  upon  them  for  the  kind  of  Wealth  they  produce. 
Would  it  then  be  much  of  a  problem  to  determine 
the  cause  of  poverty  or  to  explain  hard  times  ?  As- 
suredly not.     It  would  be  plain  that  poverty  and  hard 

but  also  for  as  many  different  kinds  of  land  as  there  are  different  kinds  of  labor  set  at 
work.  So  a  demand  for  clothing  is  not  only  a  demand  for  Clothing-makers,  a  demand 
for  shelter  is  not  only  one  for  Shelter-makers,  a  demand  for  luxuries  is  not  only  one 
for  Luxury-makers,  a  demand  for  services  is  not  only  one  for  Personal  Servants,  but 
these  demands  are  also  demands  for  appropriate  land — pasture  land  for  wool,  cotton 
land  for  cotton,  factory  land,  water  fronts  and  rights  of  way,  store  sites,  residence  sites, 
office  sites,  theater  sites,  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  an  almost  endless  catalogue. 
So.  See  ante,  pp.  12,  13,  and  14. 


62  OVTUNES  OF  POST*S  LEiriVRKS^ 

times  are  due  to  obc>tacies  placed  by  Laml-o-wmmg 
interests  in  the  wav  of  Labor's  access  to  Larnd. 

We  thus  see  that   in  the  c        -   i  state  as  well  as  in 
the  primitive^  the  fundamental  cause  of  poverty  is  the 

divorce  of  LaNor  frrvm    Land.*      But  the  unamner  tn 

— lac   x^-i  lie  .>a,^<  lo.ag'i    .-.  j  ->...       ii.ii.yc  .-Uiiiiiicab,  vJo.^*. —   — --    j   -iccrrs^ary 

u*  ciMUUseti  ^•joaxcuoA.  \J>c^  ^t^,  awess  ^  ami  53.,>  Anti  chey  waac  lij  kaow^widi 
-•uflBechiog  like  a  saecTv  whac  ciecks  and  aifichaxucs  aiid  t>«>okktt«p«»  aad  ochec 
spcdauscs  in    >^ur    iig  ^  .  laized   iatiuscry   wouiil   do   vmtk   laad    *ven  if   it   wwr* 

ea««£«  ^p«m  k>  chsm.  .an  t  kiit>w  ^w  co  oaake  SotMi,  3ad  tJiey  vjaa't  eac  suod  I   ' 

I  OQor  itia«2  a  auciaii&c  e.'tciaiJB.  T^  sanic  aucioa  i&  <«uit;spr«aii  among  chaC  lar^e 
ctasii  ««  aingts'  su  jpoonencs  m  .'hiircii  and  .-vilege^.  whom  :he  la£»  Wm.  T.  Croa-^daitt 
(JeatTibeti  j&  "*  peopie  *lio  Jeiieve  ui  iocWism,  Juc  ion't:  b«lieve  in  putting  it  into  prac- 
tice. * 

T!le  itiaa  a»   ijcsc  e.«9r«ss<id  ^eroa^  by  a  wrilec  of  the  ofiost   ^ruliant  sociulLscic 
Char'.oc^e  rtrsens  Stetson^  is  ciie  »ilowuig  : 

*  Free  suui  is  aoc  «nuug^.     ta  sariiest  iays 
Wb«n  m  r^rth's  oare  urease 

l>r«M»  toi    : -  .    :..:  ;...._-_  i....-;raaace, 

Then  rrrteeom  iad  'rtm  *drjn  were  inougd. 
T'le  moc'd  jj  which  a  3iatt  is  bora  sotiajt 

Ai    i:je    3      ;  „.  J   :_       - 

We  leed  -he  K>ad«  she  ihin.  the  hruige,  -"le  huu^e, 
I"  le  «>veromenc.  ic>  lurcn, — 


As  was  che  forest  so  liS  ancestor 

^e  lewbora,.  "  Taite  i«re  your  laaii^ 
tridi^m  ie  ■  '  -re  vou  will. 

\  I  .  V     -or  -'wi  .1  Ji  ihe  *ori«i;' 

t»  hut  t»  »ujC  the  lase-ojme  ig*)Q  aicji 

uuners  jt  his  race^ 
•  '  ji  Joe  ite  ' 
-ang-^ 
r"i<i^  aew  3aea  jome  »  caorv  mi  ch*  worid — 

he  jasc  -.-ds,  dke  ke^a, 

.'  -      ..  -  -'ches  -.  .  x^-  jjT'Lh. 

A  1 '  -        ise  aew  ^nes  May  aoc  be  comgteile^i 

Each  ??c  hisaseit  at  do  our  work  again  ; 
Rue  ?each  rieir  aaanhood  iven  with  Do-day, 
Aad  gain  :->.inor«jw  sooner       r.>  jo  ^n, — 
T»  icarx  n?om  *  iiere  we  are  and  go  ahead — 
That  a>  '-r«ie  arogress^  2?ue  hiimaoiW.''— /«  r4a»  cTi***  Warfid. 

If  jne  san  were  rar^ied  loose  aione  apon  she  easdl,  >»  ihut  olf  from  czading  with 

hi>  fpeat  degree  be  rme,  as  Mrs.  Stetson  ia  be  would  be  auc 

■  :..-  .    -  : .  .     ,i-er*anners  A  bis  "ace,  »  ciimo  che  ~jce  ^  i ;  m  ane    iie  '  . 


'iiii';  DisiKinr  1 1(>\  oi    w  i  ,\i.  i  ii.  o] 

which  ih.il  divorce  is  accomphshcd  in  the  civili/.cil 
state  remains  to  l)e  exphiineil. 

3.     rill",  DisruiiiUTioN  OF  Wkaltii. 

'I'iie  cliart  on  the  foUowiii^  P'»^<^"  displays  the  funda- 
mental principle  ol  Tioduction,  which  we  considered  at 
the  be^nnninj^,  and  also  the  funilaniental  principle  of 
Distribution,  which  is  yet  to  be  considered.  In  the 
development  of   the  ialler   will   be    found  the  explana- 

bui  her  criticism  docit  not  n|>|ily  to  iiiillioii*  of  free  iiirii  who  ftrrly  Iruiio.  To  thnit  the 
luiiil  wiMittI  he  enough.  lOven  though  (liry  wrrc  denied  exiHtlnu  lOttdH  and  i»hi|>ii  <«nd 
bridge*  and  home*,  they  woidd  *oon  make  new  one*,  and  nlailiiij;  "  front  where  wo  »ro," 
woidd  "  go  ulicad."  Fur  (rcc  land  nican^  aicciiH  to  all  natural  nialciiaU  and  foncft, 
and  free  trade  nicanit  nnohttrnctcd  indu»trial  intercour»o  hetwcen  lultorcr  and  tuliorer. 
ThcHC  arc  the  cHucnltuI  condilionii,  the  only  ctniditionn,  o(  uti  production— even  o|  ihr 
nio«.t  civili/eil. 

Ihe  root  of  the  »ociali)ttic  idc.i  i>,  the  ihouuhl  that  wr  ate  ilependenl  lor  no*  ial  li(c 
upon  nicnmnluted  capital.  'I'IiIh  in  a  mistake.  Social  life  depend*,  not  upon  ac<  tun* 
iilated  capital,  but  upon  uccuniulatcd  knowle<lge  niatic  elfective  by  interchange  of 
labor.  A  laborer  who  operate*  *onie  great  machine  *eeni*  to  be  dependent  upon  the 
owner  of  hi*  niarhiue  lor  oppurliiniiy  (o  work  ;  but  the  otdy  peojilc  upon  whom  he 
really  dependii  are  laborem  who  are  competent  co-operutively  to  make  *iich  mat  hineii, 
and  who  have  acce**  to  both  the  land  from  whii  h  the  material*  mu*t  be  drawn  mikI 
that  upon  which  they  must  group  themselves  while  doing  the  work.  When  ftociali*t* 
lay  siresx  upon  the  import. ince  of  at  rumulaled  lapital  they  aie  altiibuliiig  to  ai  cumu- 
lated capital  the  power  that  reside*  in  land  and  trade  ;  fur  to  control  lhe*e  in  to  com- 
mand the  benefit*  of  aectimulated  knowledge. 

Sim  c  the  |>roduction  of  a  machine  precede*  it*  use,  the  infeiente  is  abno*t  IrreKi*t- 
ible,  upon  a  KUpcrlu  iai  consideration,  that  o|>|)orlunities  to  labor  and  coni|ten*ation  for 
lubur  are  gnvcrned  by  (ho  exikting  *npplieii  of  machinery  to  which  labor  i*  allowed 
acre**.  Itnt  thi*  i*  of  a  piece  with  (he  old  notion  of  clasMcal  political  e<onomy  that 
opportuniiie*  to  labor  arc  dependent  upon  the  rxi*ting  supplie*  «<f  subsistence  that  are 
«!evoicd  to  ihc  niaintenancc  of  laborer*.  The  inference  i*  wrong  in  either  form.  When 
we  «mce  grusp  the  e»i»ential  truth  of  the  law  illustrated  in  the  text,  that  the  production 
of  sulisisience,  or  ni.uhinery.  or  any  other  ntdinished  object,  that  i»  to  say,  of  Capital, 
i*  hut  a  form  of  general  wealth  pioduction,  and  that  all  form*  of  wealth  production  aie 
in  obedience  to  demand,  we  cleat ly  see  that  labor  i*  in  no  respect  tlepemlent  upon 
capital  either  lor  employment  or  ct>mpenKation.  In  the  *«)cial  a*  in  the  solitary  mate, 
Labor  nnd  l.anti  are  ihr-  only  fat  tois  of  we.tllh  pitxluction.  Il  i*  not  (Capital  but  Land 
that  supplies  m.tlerials  lo  L.ilntr  ft>r  its  subsisienie  antl  ii*  mat  hiueiy.  Instead  of 
capitalist*  supplying  laborer*  with  *id»sistcnc«  and  maihinery,  laboren*  thetnsolven 
continuously  proilucc  »ub*i*tencc  ami  machinery  (lom  ilie  materials  that  land  stipplien. 
Capitalist*  nrithrr  rmploy  nor  p.ty  laboretn  ;  lal»>rers  employ  and  pay  one  another. 

KeatI  "  l'r"gipss  and  rovcrly,"  book  i,  cli*.  iii,  iv,  and  v.  AUo  rejil  "  Tlir  Sii.iy 
of  My  Dictatorship"  (No.  4,  Sterling  Library),  ch*.  v,  vi,  vii,  and  viii. 


64  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

tion  of  the  divorce  in  the  civilized  state  of  Labor  from 
Land  : 


LABOR         WAGES 


^X/LALT 


^ 


LAND  RENT 


This  chart  reminds  us  that  Labor  (human  exertion), 
by  application  to  Land  (natural  materials  and  forces 
external  to  man),  produces  Wealth  (the  generic  term 
for  all  those  things  that  tend  to  satisfy  the  material 
wants  of  man),  and  so  tends  to  abolish  poverty.  No 
man's  poverty  can  be  abolished  in  any  other  way,  un- 
less it  be  by  gifts,  or  vulgar  robbery,  or  legalized 
spoils. 

The  chart  shows  also  that  Wealth  distributes  ulti- 
mately in  Wages'"  (a  fund  made  up  of  the  aggregate  of 

82.  "  What  is  paid  for  labor  of  any  kind  is  called  wages.  We  are  apt  to  speak  of 
the  payment  given  to  the  common  day  laborer  only  as  wages  ;  and  we  give  finer  names 
to  the  payments  which  are  made  for  some  other  kinds  of  services.  Thus  we  speak  of 
the  doctor's  or  the  lawyer's  fee  ;  of  the  judge's  salary  ;  of  the  teacher's  income ;  of 
the  merchant's  profit ;  of  the  banker's  interest,  and  of  the  professor's  emoluments. 
They  are  all  in  reality  only  payments  for  labor  of  different  kinds,  or  for  different 
results  of  labor,  —that  is,  they  are  all  wages."— Z>zc-^'j  Outlines,  p.  23. 

"  Wages  is  what  goes  to  pay  for  the  trouble  of  labor."— /^7^^«j'j  Prii>ie7-,  sec.  39. 

"  His  [the  manager's]  share  is  called  the  wages  of  superintendence,  and  although 


WAGES   AND    RENT.  65 

the  earnings  of  individual  laborers),  which  corresponds 
to  Labor ;  and  Rent®^  (a  fund  made  up  of  the  aggregate 
preniiujiis  for  specially  desirable  locations),  which  cor- 
responds to  Land/* 

usually  much  larger  than  the  share  of  a  common  laborer,  it  is  really  wages  of  the  same 
nature." — A/.,  sec.  41. 

'*  The  common  meaning  of  the  word  wages  is  the  compensation  paid  to  a  hired 
person  for  manual  labor.  But  in  political  economy  the  word  wages  has  a  much  wider 
meaning,  and  includes  all  returns  for  e.xertion.  For,  as  political  economists  explain, 
the  three  agents  or  factors  in  production  are  land,  labor,  and  capital,  and  that  part  of 
the  produce  which  goes  to  the  second  of  these  factors  is  styled  by  them  wages.  .  .  It 
is  important  to  keep  this  in  mind.  For  in  the  standard  economic  works  this  sense  of 
the  term  wages  is  recognized  with  greater  or  less  clearness  only  to  be  subsequently 
ignored." — Progress  and  Poverty,  book  /,  ch.  it. 

83.  Rent  "  is  what  is  paid  for  the  use  of  a  natural  agent,  whether  land,  or  beds  of 
minerals,  or  rivers,  or  lakes.  The  rent  of  a  house  or  factory  is,  therefore,  not  all  rent 
in  our  meaning  of  the  word." — -Jevons^s  Privter,  sec.  40. 

"  The  term  rent  in  its  economic  sense  .  .  .  dififers  in  meaning  from  the  word  rent 
as  commonly  used.  In  some  respects  this  economic  meaning  is  narrower  than  the 
common  meaning ;  in  other  respects  it  is  wider. 

"  It  is  narrower  in  this  :  In  common  speech,  we  apply  the  word  rent  to  payments  for 
the  use  of  buildings,  machinery,  fixtures,  etc.,  as  well  as  to  payments  for  the  use  of 
land  or  other  natural  capabilities  ;  and  in  speaking  of  the  rent  of  a  house  or  the  rent  of 
a  farm,  we  do  not  separate  the  price  for  the  use  of  the  improvements  from  the  price 
for  the  use  of  the  bare  land.  But  in  the  economic  meaning  of  rent,  payments  for  the 
use  of  any  of  the  products  of  human  exertion  are  excluded,  and  of  the  lumped  pay- 
ments for  the  use  of  houses,  farms,  etc.,  only  that  part  is  rent  which  constitutes  the 
consideration  for  the  use  of  the  land — that  part  paid  for  the  use  of  buildings  or  other 
improvements  being  properly  interest,  as  it  is  a  consideration  for  the  use  of  capital. 

"It  is  wider  in  this :  In  common  speech  we  only  speak  of  rent  when  owner  and  user 
are  distinct  persons.  But  in  the  economic  sense  there  is  also  rent  where  the  same 
person  is  both  owner  and  user.  Where  owner  and  user  are  thus  the  same  person, 
whatever  part  of  his  income  he  might  obtain  by  letting  the  land  to  another  is  rent, 
while  the  return  for  his  labor  and  capital  are  that  part  of  his  income  which  they  would 
yield  him  did  he  hire  instead  of  owning  the  land.  Rent  is  also  expressed  in  a  selling 
price.  When  land  is  purchased,  the  payment  which  is  made  for  the  ownership,  or 
right  to  perpetual  use,  is  rent  commuted  or  capitalized.  If  I  buy  land  for  a  small 
price  and  hold  it  until  I  can  sell  it  for  a  large  price,  I  have  become  rich,  not  by  wages 
for  my  labor  or  by  interest  upon  my  capital,  but  by  the  increase  of  rent. 

"  Rent,  in  short,  is  the  share  in  the  wealth  produced  which  the  exclusive  right  to 
the  use  of  natural  capabilities  gives  to  the  owner.  Wherever  land  has  an  exchange 
value  there  is  rent  in  the  economic  meaning  of  the  term.  Wherever  land  having  a 
value  is  used,  either  by  owner  or  hirer,  there  is  rent  actual ;  wherever  it  is  not  used, 
but  still  has  a  value,  there  is  rent  potential.  It  is  this  capacity  of  yielding  rent  which 
gives  value  to  land.  Until  its  ownership  will  confer  some  advantage,  land  has  no 
value." — Progress  and  Poverty,  book  tit,  chap.  it. 

84.  "  The  primary  division  of  wealth  in  distribution  is  dual,  not  tripartite.  Capi- 
tal is  but  a  form  of  labor,  and  its  distinction  from  labor  is  in  reality  but  a  subdivision, 
just  as  the  division  of  labor  into  skilled  and  unskilled  would  be.     In  our  examination 


66  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 


a.     Explanation  of  Wages  and  Rejit. 

Differences  in  the  desirableness  of  land  divide  Wealth 
into  the  two  funds,  Wages  and  Rent.  Labor  natur- 
ally applies  its  forces  to  that  land  from  which,  consider- 
ing all  the  existing  and  known  circumstances,  most 
Wealth  can  be  produced  with  least  expenditure  of 
labor  force.  Such  land  is  the  best.  So  long  as  the 
best  land  exceeds  demand  for  it,  laborers  are  upon 
an  equality  of  opportunity,  and  the  entire  product 
goes  to  them  as  Wages  in  proportion  to  the  labor  force 
they  respectively  expend.  But  when  the  supply  of 
the  best  land  falls  below  demand  for  it,  some  laborers 
must  resort  to  land  where  with  an  equal  expenditure 
of  labor  force  they  produce  less  wealth  than  those' 
who  use  the  best  land.  The  laborers  thus  excluded 
from  the  best  land  naturally  offer  a  premium  for  it,  or 
what  is  the  same  thing,  offer  to  work  for  its  owners  for 
what  they  might  obtain  by  working  for  themselves 
upon  the  poorer  land.  This  condition  differentiates 
Rent  from  Wages.  Rent  goes  to  land-owners  as  such, 
irrespective  of  whether  they  labor  or  not ;  Wages  go  to 
laborers  as  such,  irrespective  of  whether  they  own  land 

,     85 

or  not. 

we  have  reached  the  same  point  as  would  have  been  attained  had  we  simply  treated 
capital  as  a  form  of  labor,  and  sought  the  law  which  divides  the  produce  between  rent 
and  wages  ;  that  is  to  say,  between  the  possessors  of  the  two  factors,  natural  sub- 
stances and  powers,  and  human  exertion — which  two  factors  by  their  union  produce  all 
wealth." — Progress  and  Poverty^  book  Hi,  ch.  v. 

Care  must  be  taken  not  to  confuse  the  hire  of  a  house,  commonly  and  legally 
termed  "rent,"  with  economic  Rent.  House  rent  is  really  Wages  ;  it  is  compensation 
for  the  labor  of  house  building.  But  economic  Rent  is  not  compensation  for  any- 
thing ;  it  is  simply  the  premiums  for  advantages  of  location. 

85.  Land  of  every  kind  may  vary  in  desirableness  from  other  land  of  the  same 
kind.  Certain  farming  land,  for  example,  is  so  fertile  that  it  will  yield  to  a  given 
application  of  labor  two  bushels  of  wheat  to  every  bushel  that  certain  other  farming 
land  will  yield  ;  and  it  is  obvious  that,  other  things  being  equal,  farmers  would  prefer 
the  more  fertile  land.     But  som.e  fertile  land  lies  so   far  away   from  market   that  less 


LAW   OF   WAGES   AND    RENT.  6/ 

To  illustrate  :  On  the  following  page  are  four  closed 
spaces  representing  land  which  varies  in  productiveness 
to  a  given  expenditure  of  labor  force/*^  from  4  down  to 
I.     There  is  also  an  open  space  at  the  right,  represent- 

fertile  land  lying  nearer  is  more  productive,  because  it  costs  less  to  exchange  its 
products  for  what  their  producer  demands  ;  in  such  cases  farmers  would  prefer  the 
less  fertile  land.  The  same  principle  applies  to  all  kinds  of  land.  Building  lots  at  or 
near  a  center  of  residence  or  business  are  preferable  for  most  purposes  of  residence  or 
business  to  lots  equally  good  in  other  respects  which  are  far  away. 

Now,  the  land  that  is  preferable  is  of  course  most  in  demand  ;  and  if  it  be  all  in 
use,  with  demand  for  it  unsatisfied,  competition  for  the  preference  sets  in,  and  gives 
value  to  it. 

All  land  cannot  be  equally  desirable.  Some  excels  in  fertility.  Some  is  rich  with 
mineral  deposits,  a  species  of  fertility.  On  some,  towns  and  cities  settle,  thereby 
adding  to  the  productiveness  of  the  labor  that  uses  it,  because  these  sites  are  thus  made 
centers  of  co-operation  or  trade.  And  yet  production  in  the  civilized  state  requires  that 
the  producer  shall  have  exclusive  possession  of  the  land  he  needs.  This  necessity  in- 
evitably gives  to  some  people  more  desirable  land  than  others  have,  even  though  all 
should  have  an  abundance.  Consequently  the  returns  to  equal  labor  are  unequal.  The 
man  who  has  land  that  is  more  fertile  or  better  located  than  that  of  another  gets  more 
wealth  than  the  other  in  return  for  a  given  expenditure  of  labor.  If,  for  example,  one 
with  given  labor  produces  lo  bushels  of  corn  from  fertile  land,  equal,  say,  to  $5 
worth  of  any  kind  of  wealth  in  the  market,  and  the  other  with  the  same  labor  produces 
8  bushels  of  corn,  or  $4  worth  of  any  kind  of  wealth  in  the  market,  the  first  receives 
2  bushels  (or  $1)  more  for  his  labor  than  the  other  receives  for  his,  though  each  labors 
with  equal  effort,  skill,  and  intelligence.  Or,  if  the  fertility  of  the  land  be  the  same, 
but  its  situation  in  reference  to  the  market  be  such  that  the  cost  of  transportation  still 
preserves  the  relation  of  $5  to  $4,  the  same  inequality  of  wages  results.  It  is  this 
phenomenon  that  gives  rise  to  Rent.  Rent  is  the  market  value  of  just  such  differences 
in  opportunity  as  are  here  illustrated.  It  is  a  premium  for  choice  land,  for  preferential 
locations,  for  site,  for  space. 

This  premium  is  a  very  different  thing  from  compensation  for  labor.  Nor  is  the 
difference  modified  when  premium  owners  first  obtain  Wages  for  work  and  with  them 
buy  the  premium-commanding  land.  Rent  can  no  more  be  turned  into  compensation 
for  labor  by  exchanging  labor  products  for  the  power  to  exact  it,  than  a  man  can  be 
turned  into  Wealth  by  exchanging  Wealth  for  him.  Whether  the  fruits  of  purchase 
or  of  conquest,  or  of  fraud.  Rent  alwaj's  constitutes  that  part  of  Wealth  which  is 
deducted  from  current  production  as  premiums  for  superior  opportunities  for  production. 

Wages  and  Rent  are  both  drawn  from  Wealth,  and  both  go  often  to  the  same  indi- 
vidual and  in  the  same  form  of  payment,  as  when  a  freehold  farmer  enjoys  the  use  of 
the  grain  he  raises  from  more  fertile  land  than  his  neighbors  have,  or  a  city  freeholder 
occupies  or  receives  hire  from  his  house  and  lot :  but  Wages  flow  from  Wealth  to  labor 
as  compensation  for  production,  while  Rent  flows  from  Wealth  to  land-owners  in  premi- 
ums for  allowing  labor  to  produce  Wealth  from  superior  locations.  Wages  are  appur- 
tenant to  Labor;  Rent  is  appurtenant  to  Land.  It  is  as  laborer  that  the  individual 
takes  Wages,  but  as  land-owner  that  he  takes  Rent. 

86.  A  unit  of  labor  cannot  be  definitely  measured  save  by  the  value  of  some  labor 
product.  The  daj^'s  labor  of  one  man  may  produce  less  than  an  hour's  labor  of  another. 
But  for  purposes  of  illustration  it  is  competent  to  refer  to  a  unit  of  labor  force  as  an 
abstraction,  intending  thereby  to  denote  all  the  labor  of  muscle  and  brain  requisite  to 
acquire  the  necessary  knowledge  and  skill  and  to  produce  wealth  to  a  given  value  from 
given  natural  sources. 


68 


OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


ing  land  that  is  yet  so  poor  as  to  yield  nothing  to  the 
given  expenditure  of  labor  force.     Thus : 


^ 


5 


Z 


/ 


0 


For  simplicity  let  the  market  be  equally  convenient 
to  each  space.  Let  it  be  assumed  also  that  one  space 
is  as  accessible  to  labor  as  another,  and  that  the  differ- 
ences in  their  productiveness  are  known.  Now,  to 
which  space  would  labor  first  resort  ?  Obviously  to  that 
which  would  yield  most  Wealth  to  the  given  expendi- 
ture of  labor  force — the  space  to  the  extreme  left. 

Suppose,  then,  that  labor  appropriates  only  as  much 
of  the  best  space  as  is  required  for  use — say  half  of  it. 
We  may  note  the  fact  with  red  color  upon  the  chart : 


WACLS 
R[NT 

y 

1 

J 

2 

/ 

0 

0 

_ 

LAW   OF   WAGES   AND    RENT.  69 

Here  we  see  that  Wages  are  4  and  Rent  o.  The 
laborers,  as  such,  take  the  entire  product,  dividing  it 
among  themselves  in  proportion  to  their  services. 
There  is  no  Rent  because  other  laborers  find  equally 
good  opportunities  to  produce  in  the  uncolored  part  of 
the  space  ;  the  supply  of  the  best  land  exceeds  the 
demand  for  it,  and  of  course  it  commands  no  premium." 

But  if  demand  for  land  should  continue  until  the 
best  space,  was  monopolized,^^  and  some  laborers  were 
forced  to  resort  to  the  next,  the  best  space  would  com- 
mand a  premium  ;"'*  Rent  would  rise  and  Wages  would 

87.  "  No  land  ever  pays  rent  unless  in  point  of  fertility  or  situation  it  belongs  to 
those  superior  kinds  which  exist  in  less  quantity  than  the  demand." — MilFs  Prin., 
took  it,  ch.  XV iy  sec.  2. 

"  The  produce  of  labor  constitutes  the  natural  recompense  or  wages  of  labor.  In 
that  original  state  of  things,  which  precedes  both  the  appropriation  of  land  and  the 
accumulation  of  stock,  the  whole  produce  of  labor  belongs  to  the  laborer." — S>nith''s 
Wealth  0/  Nations,  book  /',  ch.  viii. 

"  Rent  or  land  value  does  not  arise  from  the  productiveness  or  utility  of  land.  It 
in  no  wise  represents  any  help  or  advantage  given  to  production,  but  simply  the  power 
of  securing  a  part  of  the  results  of  production.  No  matter  what  are  its  capabilities, 
land  can  yield  no  rent  and  have  no  value  until  some  one  is  willing  to  give  labor  or  the 
results  of  labor  for  the  privilege  of  using  it ;  and  what  any  one  will  thus  give,  depends 
not  upon  the  capacity  of  the  land,  but  upon  its  capacity  as  compared  with  that  of  land 
that  can  be  had  for  nothing.  I  may  have  very  rich  land,  but  it  will  yield  no  rent  and 
have  no  value  so  long  as  there  is  other  land  as  good  to  be  had  without  cost.  But  when 
this  other  land  is  appropriated,  and  the  best  land  to  be  had  for  nothing  is  inferior, 
either  in  fertility,  situation,  or  other  quality,  my  land  will  begin  to  have  a  value  and 
yield  rent.  And  though  the  productiveness  of  my  land  may  decrease,  yet  if  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  the  land  to  be  had  without  charge  decreases  in  greater  proportion,  the 
rent  I  can  get,  and  consequently  the  value  of  my  land,  will  steadily  increase.  Rent,  in 
short,  is  the  price  of  monopoly,  arising  from  the  reduction  to  individual  ownership  of 
natural  elements  which  human  exertion  can  neither  produce  nor  increase." — Progress 
and  Poverty,  book  Hi,  ch.  ii. 

88.  "  Rent  is  the  effect  of  a  monopoly  ;  though  the  monopoly  is  a  natural  one, 
which  may  be  regulated,  which  may  even  be  held  as  a  trust  for  the  community  gener- 
ally, but  which  cannot  be  prevented  from  existing.  .  .  If  all  the  land  of  the  country' 
belonged  to  one  person  he  could  fix  the  rent  at  his  pleasure.  .  .  The  effect  would  be 
much  the  same  if  the  land  belonged  to  so  few  people  that  they  could  and  did  act 
together  as  one  man  and  fix  the  rent  by  agreement  among  themselves.  .  .  The  only 
remaining  supposition  is  that  of  free  competition." — Mill's  Prin.,  book  ii,  ch.  xvi, 
sec.  I. 

Rent  "  considered  as  the  price  paid  for  the  use  of  the  land  is  naturally  a  monop- 
oly price." — Smith'' s  Wealth  0/ Nations,  book  i,  ch.  xi. 

8g.  The  line  of  separation  between  the  poorest  land  thus  commanding  a  premiumj- 
and  the  best  land  for  which  labor  will  not  pay  a  premium,  was  formerly  called  "  the* 


/*S 


4r  \^  ^^^"^     "VW 


70 


OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES, 


fail.  Even  though  but  few  laborers  were  forced  to  the 
poorer  space,  they  would  be  perpetual  bidders  for  the 
advantages  of  the  other  space.  The  effect  may  be 
illustrated  by  indicating  with  red  in  our  chart  the  over- 
flow of  labor  from  the  first  into  the  second  space  : 


VACE5 

-5      3 

I 

/ 

0 

RENT 

/       /) 

This  illustrates  the  elementary  principle  of  Distribu- 
tion, that  Wages  fall  and   Rent  rises  as  demand   for 

margin  of  cultivation,"  probably  because  the  law  of  rent  was  not  understood  with 
reference  to  any  but  agricultural  land  ;  but  it  is  now  more  generally  called  "  the  mar- 
gin of  production,"  since  it  is  understood  that  the  law  of  rent  applies  to  all  kinds  of 
land,  including,  of  course,  the  building  lots  of  cities. 

The  premium  for  land  falls  not  into  the  fund  termed  Wages,  but  into  the  fund 
termed  Rent.  Henceforth  Wages  consist  not  of  the  entire  product  of  labor,  but  of  so 
much  of  that  product  as  might  with  the  same  expenditure  of  labor  force  be  produced 
from  the  best  land  that  commands  no  premium.  The  remainder  goes  to  the  owners  of 
the  land  from  which  it  is  in  fact  produced,  in  proportion  to  the  advantages  which  their 
land  respectively  contributes  to  its  production.  This  excess  is  the  premium.  It  is 
what  constitutes  Rent  as  distinguished  from  Wages.  And  both  the  amount  c.f  the 
general  fund  Rent,  and  the  amount  of  rent  which  each  land-owner  obtains,  are  deter- 
mined by  the  competition  of  labor  for  superior  opportunities. 

Thus,  in  the  beginnings  all  Wealth  would  be  Wages  ;  but  as  labor  was  forced  from 
better  to  poorer  lands,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing  in  its  principle  of  operation,  as 
greater  capabilities  attached  to  particular  lands  in  consequence  of  social  development, 
good  government,  industrial  improvement,  etc..  Rent  would  arise,  and  as  a  proportion  of 
the  gross  Wealth-product,  would  increase  as  labor  was  forced  to   poorer  land  or  new 


LAW   OF   WAGES   AND    RENT. 


71 


land  forces  labor  to  land  of  lower  productiveness.^'^ 
The  principle  may  be  more  graphically  illustrated  by 
supposing  that  demand  for  spaces  in  the  chart  advances 
so  far  as  to  include  all  the  closed  spaces,  except  part  of 
the  poorest  one.     Thus  : 


WAGES      I       I       I       I 


atsasmsa>SimsJmmmm\-m\\i<  mn  1  « 


3 


RENT 


Z 


/ 


M 


J    ^    / 


0 


0 


We  now  find  that  all  Wages  have  fallen  to  the  level 
of  Wages  on  the  poorest  land  that  yields  anything  to 
the  given  unit  of  labor  force  ;  while  the  Rent  of  all  but 
that  has,  at  the  expense  of  Wages,  risen  in  proportion 
to  its  superior  productiveness.''^ 

Reflection  will    convince   us  that   this  must   be  so. 

capabilities  were  added  to  land  by  society.  The  law  derived  from  these  phenomena  is 
known  as  Ricardo's  law  of  rent.     Henry  George  formulates  it  as  follows  : 

"  The  rent  of  land  is  determined  by  the  excess  of  its  produce  over  that  which  the 
same  application  can  secure  from  the  least  productive  land  in  w^y^r ^Progress  and 
Poverty,  book  in,  ch.  it. 

As  will  be  noticed,  the  law  is  the  law  of  Wages  as  well  as  the  law  of  Rent.  For 
whatever  determines  the  proportion  of  Wealth  to  be  taken  as  Rent  necessarily  deter- 
mines the  proportion  to  be  left  as  Wages. 

90.  Though  figures  are  used,  these  charts  are  to  be  understood  not  as  mathemati- 
cal dc}iionstratio>is,  but  simply  as  illustrations. 

Qi.  The  labor  that  was  forced  to  the  poorest  lands  would  continually  bid  for  the 
opportunities  that  the  better  lands  offered,  until  an   equilibrium   was  reached   at  the 


72  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

Wages  for  a  given  expenditure  of  labor  force  are  no 
more  anywhere,  for  any  length  of  time,  all  things  con- 
sidered, than  the  same  expenditure  of  labor  force  will 
produce  from  the  best  land  to  be  had  for  nothing. 
Rent  absorbs  the  difference.'" 

b.     Normal  Effect  of  Social  Progress  upon  Wages  and 

Rent. 

In  the  foregoing  charts  the  effect  of  social  growth 
is  ignored,  it  being  assumed  that  the  given  expendi- 
ture of  labor  force  does  not  become  more  produc- 
tive."'    Let  us  now  try  to  illustrate  that  effect,  upon 

point  shown  in  the  preceding  chart,  where  the  given  expenditure  of  labor  is  as  well 
compensated  in  one  place  as  in  another. 

If  laborer  and  land-owner  be  different  persons,  the  laborer  receives  what  is  distin- 
guished as  Wages,  and  the  land-owner  what  is  distinguished  as  Rent.  If  the  same 
person,  he  receives  Wages  as  laborer  and  Rent  as  land-owner. 

92.  But  we  must  not  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  any  essential  wrong  in 
Rent.  Rent  is  nature's  method  of  measuring  the  value  of  the  differences  in  natural 
opportunity  which  different  laborers,  owing  to  variations  in  land,  are  obliged  to  accept. 
And,  what  in  practice  is  more  important,  it  is  nature's  method  of  measuring  the  value 
to  each  individual  of  those  advantages  which  consist  in  accumulations  of  common 
knowledge,  in  co-operative  effort,  in  good  government,  in  a  word,  in  the  benefits  that 
society  as  a  whole  confers  as  distinguished  from  those  which  each  individual  earns. 
The  question  is  not  one  of  the  rightfulness  or  the  wrongfulness  of  Rent.  Personal 
freedom  necessitates  Rent,  for  it  necessitates  the  private  possession  of  land,  and  private 
possession  of  land  makes  Rent  inevitable.  Nothing  short  of  communism  could  abolish 
it.  The  real  question  is,  What  shall  society  do  with  Rent  ?  Shall  it  give  it  to  indi- 
viduals, or  use  it  for  common  purposes  ? 

"  Were  there  only  one  man  on  earth,  he  would  have  a  right  to  the  use  of  the 
whole  earth. 

"  When  there  is  more  than  one  man  on  earth,  the  right  to  the  use  of  land  that 
any  one  of  them  would  have,  were  he  alone,  is  not  abrogated;  it  is  only  limited.  ,  . 
It  has  become  by  reason  of  this  limitation,  not  an  absolute  right  to  use  any  part  of  the 
earth,  but  (i)  an  absolute  right  to  use  any  part  of  the  earth  as  to  which  his  use  does 
not  conflict  with  the  equal  rights  of  others  C^'-  «••<  which  no  one  else  wants  to  use  at  the 
same  time),  and  (2)  a  co-equal  right  to  the  use  of  any  part  of  the  earth  which  he  anil 
others  may  want  to  use  at  the  same  time." — Perplexed  Philosopher^  p.  45. 

It  is  in  adjustment  of  this  co-equal  right  that  rent  occurs. 

93.  "  The  effect  of  increasing  population  upon  the  distribution  of  wealth  is  to 
increase  rent  .  .  .  in  two  ways  :  First,  By  lowering  the  margin  of  cultivation.  Second, 
By  bringing  out  in  land  special  capabilities  otherwise  latent,  and  by  attaching speciq.1 
capabilities  to  particular  lands. 

"  I  am  disposed  to  think  that  the  latter  mode,  to  which  little  attention  has  been 


EFFECT   OF   SOCIAL   GROWTH 


71 


the  supposition  that  social  growth  increases  the  pro- 
ductive power  of  the  given  expenditure  of  labor  force 
as  applied  to  the  first  closed  space,  to  lOO;  as  applied 
to  the  second,  to  50;  as  applied  to  the  third,  to  10  ;  as 
applied  to  the  fourth,  to  3,  and  as  applied  to  the  open 
space,  to  i.^^  If  there  were  no  increased  demand  for 
land  the  chart  would  then  be  like  this  : 


VACtS 
KtNT 

:5     ^  ^    ^ 

JO 

m 

iO 

J 

/ 

i^^^^^^^i 1 1 1 

given  by  political  economists,  is  really  the  more  important." — Progress  and  Poverty, 
book  iv,  ch.  Hi. 

"  When  we  have  inquired  what  it  is  that  marks  off  land  from  those  material  things 
which  we  regard  as  products  of  the  land,  we  shall  find  that  the  fundamental  attribute 
of  land  is  its  extension.  The  right  to  use  a  piece  of  land  gives  command  over  a  certain 
space — a  certain  part  of  the  earth's  surface.  The  area  of  the  earth  is  fixed  ;  the  geo- 
metric relations  in  which  any  particular  part  of  it  stands  to  other  parts  are  fixed.  Man 
has  no  control  over  them  ;  they  are  wholly  unaffected  by  demand  ;  they  have  no  cost 
of  production  ;  there  is  no  supplj'  price  at  which  they  can  be  produced. 

"  The  use  of  a  certain  area  of  the  earth's  surface  is  a  primary  condition  of  anything 
that  man  can  do  ;  it  gives  him  room  for  his  own  actions,  with  the  enjoyment  of  the 
heat  and  the  light,  the  air  and  the  rain  which  nature  assigns  to  that  area  ;  and  it  deter- 
■jni7tes  his  distance  from  ^  and  in  great  measure  his  relations  to,  other  things  and 
other  persons.  We  shall  find  that  it  is  this  property  of  land,  which,  though  as  yet 
insufficient  prominence  has  been  given  to  it,  is  the  ultimate  cause  of  the  distinction 
which  all  writers  are  compelled  to  make  between  land  and  other  things." — MarshalVs 
Prin..  book  iv,  ch.  ii,  sec.  i. 

94.  Of  course  social  growth  does  not  go  on  in  this  regular  way  ;  the  charts  are 
merely  illustrative.  They  are  intended  to  illustrate  the  universal  fact  that  as  any 
land  becomes  a  center  of  trade  or  other  social  relationship  its  value  ri-es. 


74  OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES- 

Though  Rent  is  now  increased,  so  are  Wages.  Both 
benefit  by  social  growth.  But  if  we  consider  the  fact 
that  increase  in  the  productive  power  of  labor  in- 
creases demand  for  land  we  shall  see  that  the  tendency 
of  Wages  (as  a  proportion  of  product  if  not  as  an  abso- 
lute quantity)  is  downward,  while  that  of  Rent  is  up- 
ward.''' And  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  obser- 
vation."^ 

c.     Significance  of  the  Upivard  Tendency  of  Rent. 

Now,  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  tendency  of  Rent 
to  rise  with  social  progress,  while  Wages  tend  to  fall  ? 
Is  it  not  a  plain  promise  that  if  Rent  be  treated  as  com- 
mon property,  advances  in  productive  power  shall  be 
steps  in  the  direction  of  realizing  through  orderly  and 
natural  growth  those  grand  conceptions  of  both  the 
socialist  and  the  individualist,  which  in  the  present 
condition  of  society  are  justly  ranked  as  Utopian? 
Is  it  not  likewise  a  plain  warning  that  if  Rent  be 
treated  as  private  property,  advances  in  productive 
power  will   be  steps  in  the  direction  of  making  slaves 

95.  "  Perhaps  it  may  be  well  to  remind  the  reader,  before  closing  this  chapter,  of 
what  has  been  before  stated — that  I  am  using  the  word  wages  not  in  the  sense  of 
a  quantity,  but  in  the  sense  of  a  proportion.  When  I  say  that  wages  fall  as  rent 
rises,  I  do  not  mean  that  the  quantity  of  wealth  obtained  by  laborers  as  wages  is 
necessarily  less,  but  that  the  proportion  which  it  bears  to  the  whole  produce  is  neces- 
sarily less.  The  proportion  may  diminish  while  the  quantity  remains  the  same  or 
increases." — Progress  and  Poverty^  book  iii^  ch.  vi. 

96.  The  condition  illustrated  in  the  last  chart  would  be  the  result  of  social  growth 
if  all  land  but  that  which  was  in  full  use  were  common  land.  The  discovery  of  mines, 
the  development  of  cities  and  towns,  and  the  construction  of  railroads,  the  irrigation 
of  arid  places,  improvements  in  government,  all  the  infinite  conveniences  and  labor- 
saving  devices  that  civilization  generates,  would  tend  to  abolish  poverty  by  increasing 
the  compensation  of  labor,  and  making  it  impossible  for  any  man  to  be  in  involuntary 
idleness,  or  underpaid,  so  long  as  mankind  was  in  want.  If  demand  for  land  increased. 
Wages  would  tend  to  fall  as  the  demand  brought  lower  grades  of  land  into  use  ;  but 
they  would  at  the  same  time  tend  to  rise  as  social  growth  added  new  capabilities  to 
the  lower  grades.  And  it  is  altogether  probable  that,  while  progress  would  lower 
Wages  as  a  proportion  of  total  product,  it  would  increase  them  as  an  absolute 
quantity. 


JUST   OWNERSHIP   OF   WAGES   AND    RENT.  75 

of  the  many  laborers,  and  masters  of  a  few  land-owners? 
Does  it  not  mean  that  common  ownership  of  Rent  is 
in  harmony  with  natural  law,  and  that  its  private  ap- 
propriation is  disorderly  and  degrading?  When  the 
cause  of  Rent  and  the  tendency  illustrated  in  the  pre- 
ceding chart  are  considered  in  connection  with  the 
self-evident  truth  that  God  made  the  earth  for  com- 
mon use  and  not  for  private  monopoly,  how  can  a  con- 
trary inference  hold  ?  Caused  and  increased  by  social 
growth,"  the  benefits  of  which  should  be  common,  and 
attaching  to  land,  the  just  right  to  which  is  equal.  Rent 
must  be  the  natural  fund  for  public  expenses.''® 

If  there  be  at  all  such  a  thing  as  design  in  the  uni- 
verse— and  who  can  doubt  it  ? — then  has  it  been  de- 
signed that  Rent,  the  earnings  of  the  community,  shall 
be  retained  for  the  support  of  the  community,  and  that 
Wages,  the  earnings  of  the  individual,  shall  be  left  to 
the  individual  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  his  service. 
This  is  the  divine  law,  whether  we  trace  it  through 
complex  moral  and  economic  relations,  or  find  it  in  the 
eighth  commandment. 


97.  Here,  far  away  from  civilization,  is  a  solitary  settler.  Getting  no  benefits 
from  government,  he  needs  no  public  revenues,  and  none  of  the  land  about  him  has 
any  value.  Another  settler  comes,  and  another,  until  a  village  appears.  Some  public 
revenue  is  then  required.  Not  much,  but  some.  And  the  land  has  a  little  value, 
only  a  little  ;  perhaps  just  enough  to  equal  the  need  for  public  revenue.  The 
village  becomes  a  town.  More  revenues  are  needed,  and  land  values  are  higher.  It 
becomes  a  city.  The  public  revenues  required  are  enormous,  and  so  are  the  land 
values. 

98.  Society,  and  society  alone,  causes  Rent.  Rising  with  the  rise,  advancing  with 
the  growth,  and  receding  with  the  decline  of  society,  it  measures  the  earning  power 
of  society  as  a  whole  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  individuals.  Wages,  on  the  other 
hand,  measure  the  earning  power  of  the  individuals  as  distinguished  from  that  of 
society  as  a  whole.  We  have  distinguished  the  parts  into  .which  Wealth  is  distributed 
as  Wages  and  Rent ;  but  it  would  be  correct,  indeed  it  is  the  same  thing,  to  regard  all 
wealth  as  earnings,  and  to  distinguish  the  two  kinds  as  Cotninunal  Earnings  and  Indi- 
vidual Earnings.  How,  then,  can  there  be  any  question  as  to  the  fund  from  which 
society  should  be  supported?  How  can  it  be  justly  supported  in  any  other  way  than 
out  of  its  own  earnings? 


76 


OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 


d.     Effect  of  Confiscating  Rent  to  Private   Use. 

By  giving  Rent  to  individuals  society  ignores  this 
most  just  law/'^  thereby  creating  social  disorder  and 
inviting  social  disease.  Upon  society  alone,  therefore, 
and  not  upon  divine  Providence  which  has  provided 
bountifully,  nor  upon  the  disinherited  poor,  rests  the 
responsibility  for  poverty  and  fear  of  poverty. 

Let  us  try  to  trace  the  connection  by  means  of  a 
chart,  beginning  with  the  white  spaces  on  page  68. 
As  before,  the  first-comers  take  possession  of  the  best 
land.  But  instead  of  leaving  for  others  what  they  do 
not  themselves  need  for  use,  as  in  the  previous  illustra- 
tions, they  appropriate  the  whole  space,  using  only 
part,  but  claiming  ownership  of  the  rest.  We  may  dis- 
tinguish the  used  part  with  red  color,  and  that  which  is 
appropriated  without  use  with  blue.     Thus: 


WACLS      f 


RCNT 


0 


qg.  "Whatever  dispute  arouses  the  passions  of  men,  the  conflict  is  sure  to  rage, 
not  so  much  a=  to  the  question  '  Is  it  wise  ?  '  as  to  the  question  '  Is  it  right  ?  ' 

"This  tendency  of  popular  discussions  to  take  an  ethical  form  has  a  cause.  It 
springs  from  a  law  of  the  human  mind  ;  it  rests  upon  a  vague  and  instinctive  recogni- 


SPECULATION   IN   LAND  •  77 

But  what  motive  is  there  for  appropriating  more  of 
the  space  than  is  used?  Simply  that  the  appropriators 
may  secure  the  pecuniary  benefit  of  future  social 
o-rowth.  Wliat  will  enable  them  to  secure  that  ?  Our 
system  of  confiscating  Rent  from  the  community  that 
earns  it,  and  giving  it  to  land-owners  who,  as  such,  earn 
nothing/"" 

Observe  the  effect  now  upon  Rent  and  Wages. 
When  other  men  come,  instead  of  finding  half  of  the 
best  land  still  common  and  free,  as  in  the  correspond- 
ing chart  on  page  6S,  they  find  all  of  it  owned,  and  are 
obliged  either  to  go  upon  poorer  land  or  to  buy  or  rent 
from  owners  of  the  best.  How  much  will  they  pay  for 
the  best?  Not  more  than  i,  if  they  want  it  for  use 
and  not  to  hold  for  a  higher  price  in  the  future,  for 
that  represents  the  full  difference  between  its  produc- 
tiveness and  the  productiveness  of  the  next  best.  But 
if  the  first-comers,  reasoning  that  the  next  best  land 
will  soon  be  scarce  and  theirs  will  then  rise  in  value, 
refuse  to  sell  or  to  rent  at  that  valuation,  the  new- 
comers must  resort  to  land  of  the  second  grade,  though 
the  best  be  as  yet  only  partly  used.  Consequently 
land  of  the  first  grade  commands  Rent  before  it  other- 
wise would. 

tion  of  what  is  probablj'  the  deepest  truth  we  can  grasp.  That  alone  is  wise  which  is 
just  ;  that  alone  is  enduring  which  is  right.  In  the  narrow  scale  of  individual  actions 
and  individual  life  this  truth  may  be  often  obscured,  but  in  the  wider  field  of  national 
life  it  everj'where  stands  out. 

"  I  bow  to  this  arbitrament,  and  accept  this  test." — Progress  and  Poverty,  book 
viz.,  ch.  i. 

The  reader  who  has  been  deceived  into  believing  that  Mr.  George's  proposition  is 
in  any  respect  unjust,  will  find  profit  in  a  perusal  of  the  entire  chapter  from  which 
the  foregoing  extract  is  taken. 

;  100.  It  is  reported  from  Iowa  that  a  few  years  ago  a  workman  in  that  State  saw  a 
meteorite  fall,  and,  securing  possession  of  it  after  much  digging,  he  was  offered  $105 
by  a  college  for  his  "  find."  But  the  owner  of  the  land  on  which  the  meteorite  fell 
claimed  the  money,  and  the  two  went  to  law  about  it.  After  an  appeal  to  the  highest 
court  of  the  State,  it  was  finally  decided  that  neither  by  right  of  discover}',  nor  by 
right  of  labor,  could  the  workman  have  the  money,  because  the  title  to  the  meteorite 
was  in  the  man  who  owned  the  land  upon  which  it  fell. 


78 


OUTLINES   OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


As  the  sellers'  price,  under  these  circumstances,  is 
arbitrary  it  cannot  be  stated  in  the  chart ;  but  the 
buyers'  price  is  limited  by  the  superiority  of  the  best 
land  over  that  which  can  be  had  for  nothing,  and  the 
chart  may  be  made  to  show  it : 


WAGES 

J      J 

K'   fi  1'^"  '  ^Blft^B 

5 

Z 

/ 

0 

RENT 

/ 

0 

And  now,  owing  to  the  success  of  the  appropriators 
of  the  best  land  in  securing  more  than  their  fellows  for 
the  same  expenditure  of  labor  force,  a  rush  is  made 
for  unappropriated  land.  It  is  not  to  use  it  that  it  is 
wanted,  but  to  enable  its  appropriators  to  put  Rent 
into  their  own  pockets  as  soon  as  growing  demand  for 
land  makes  it  valuable.'"     We  may,  for   illustration, 

loi.  The  text  speaks  of  Rent  only  as  a  periodical  or  continuous  payment — what 
would  be  called  "ground  rent."  But  actual  or  potential  Rent  may  always  be,  and 
frequently  is,  capitalized  for  the  purpose  of  selling  the  right  to  enjoy  it,  and  it  is  to 
selling  value  that  we  usually  refer  when  dealing  in  land. 

Land  which  has  the  power  of  yielding  Rent  to  its  owner  will  have  a  selling  value, 
whether  it  be  used  or  not,  and  whether  Rent  is  actually  derived  from  it  or  not.  This 
selling  value  will  be  the  capitalization  of  its  present  or  prospective  power  of  producing 
Rent.  In  fact,  much  the  larger  proportion  of  land  that  has  a  selling  value  is  wholly'  or 
partly  unused,  producing  no  Rent  at  all,  or  less  than  it  would  if  fully  used.  This 
condition  is  expressed  in  the  chart  by  the  blue  color. 

"  The  capitalized  value  of   land  is  the  actuarial   '  discounted  '  value  of  all  the  net 


SPECULATION   IN   LAND. 


79 


suppose  that  all  the  remainder  of  the  second  space 
and  the  whole  of  the  third  are  thus  appropriated,  and 
note  the  effect : 


At  this  point  Rent  does  not  increase  nor  Wages  fall, 
because  there  is  no  increased  demand  for  land  for  use. 
The  holding  of  inferior  land  for  higher  prices,  when 
demand  for  use  is  at  a  standstill,  is  like  owning  lots  in 
the  moon — entertaining,  perhaps,  but  not  profitable. 
But  let  more  land  be  needed  for  use,  and  matters 
promptly  assume  a  different  appearance.  The  new 
labor  must  either  go  to  the  space  that  yields  but    i,  or 

incomes  which  it  is  likely  to  afford,  allowance  being  made  on  the  one  hand  for  all 
incidental  expenses,  including  those  of  collecting  the  rents,  and  on  the  other  for  its. 
mineral  wealth,  its  capabilities  of  development  for  any  kind  of  business,  and  its  ad- 
vantages, material,  social,  and  sesthetic,  for  the  purposes  of  residence." — Mar~ 
shalVs  Prin.y  book  vi\  ch.  ix,  sec.  g. 

"  The  value  of  land  is  commonly  expressed  as  a  certain  number  of  times  the: 
current  money  rental,  or  in  other  words,  a  certain  'number  of  years'  purchase'  of 
that  rental  ;  and  other  things  being  equal,  it  will  be  the  higher  the  more  important, 
these  direct  gratifications  are,  as  well  as  the  greater  the  chance  that  they  and  the- 
money  income  afforded  by  the  land  will  rise." — Id.,  note. 

"Value   .    .    .    means  not  utility,  not  any  quality  inhering  in  the  thing  itself,  but 
a  quality  which  gives  to  the  possession  of  a  thing  the  power  of  obtaining  other  things. 


So 


OUTLINES    OF   POST  S   LECTURES. 


buy  or  rent  from  owners  of  better  grades,  or  hire  out. 
The  effect  would  be  the  same  in  any  case.  Nobody 
for  the  given  expenditure  of  labor  force  would  get 
more  than  i  ;  the  surplus  of  products  would  go  to  land- 
owners as  Rent,  either  directly  in  rent  payments,  or 
indirectly  throucrh  lo\rer  Wac^es.     Thus  : 


The  figure  i  in  parenthesis,  as  an  item  of  Rent,  indi- 
cates/^/r;///^/  Rent.  Labor  would  give  that  much  for 
the  privilege  of  using  the  space,  but  the  owners  hold 
out    for   better   terms  :    therefore    neither    Rent    nor 

in  return  for  it  or  for  its  use.  .  .  Value  in  this  sense — the  usual  sense — is  purely 
relative.  It  exists  from  and  is  measured  by  the  power  of  obtaining  things  for  things  by 
exchanging  them.  .  .  Utilitj-  is  necessar>'  to  value,  for  nothing  can  be  valuable  unless 
it  has  the  quality  of  gratifying  some  physical  or  mental  desire  of  man,  though  it  be  but 
a  fanc>'  or  whim.  But  utilit3-  of  itself  does  not  give  value.  .  .  If  we  ask  ourselves 
the  reason  of  .  .  .  variations  in  .  .  .  value  .  .  .  we  see  that  things  having  some 
form  of  utility  or  desirabilitj',  are  valuable  or  not  valuable,  as  they  are  hard  or  easy 
to  get.  And  if  we  ask  further,  we  may  see  that  wiih  most  of  the  things  that 
have  value  this  difficulty  or  ease  of  getting  them,  which  determines  value, 
depends  on  the  amount  of  labor  which  must  be  expended  in  producing  them  ;  i.  e., 
bringing  them  into  the  place,  form  and  condition  in  which  they  are  desired.  .  .  Value 
is  simply  an  expression  of  the  labor  required  for  the  production  of  such  a  thing.  But 
there  are  some  things  as  to  which  this  is  not  so  clear.     Land  is  not  produced  by  labor 


SPECULATION    IN   LAND.  8 1 

Wages  is  actually  produced,  though  but  for  this  both 
might  be. 

In  this  chart,  notwithstanding  that  but  little  space 
is  used,  indicated  with  red,  Wages  are  reduced  to  the 
same  low  point  by  the  mere  appropriation  of  space, 
indicated  with  blue,  that  they  would  reach  if  all  the 
space  above  the  poorest  were  fully  used.  It  thereby 
appears  that  under  a  system  which  confiscates  Rent  to 
private  uses,  the  demand  for  land  for  speculative  pur- 
poses becomes  so  great  that  Wages  fall  to  a  minimum 
lon-g  before  they  would  if  land  were  appropriated  only 
for  use. 

In  illustrating  the  effect  of  confiscating  Rent  to  pri- 
vate use  we  have  as  yet  ignored  the  element  of  social 
growth.  Let  us  now  assume  as  before  (page  73),  that 
social  growth  increases  the  productive  power  of  the 
given  expenditure  of  labor  force  to  100  when  applied  to 
the  best  land,  50  when  applied  to  the  next  best,  10  to 
the  next,  3  to  the  next,  and  i  to  the  poorest.  Labor 
would  not  be  benefited  now,  as  it  appeared  to  be 
when  on  page  73  we  illustrated  the  appropriation  of 
land  for  use  only,  although  much  less  land  is  actually 
used.  The  prizes  which  expectation  of  future  social 
growth  dangles  before  men  as  the  rewards  of  owning 
land,  would  raise  demand  so  as  to  make  it  more  than 
ever  difificult  to  get  land.  All  of  the  fourth  grade 
would  be  taken  up   in  expectation  of  future  demand  ; 

yet  land,  irrespective  of  any  improvements  that  labor  has  made  on  it,  often  has 
value.  .  .  Yet  a  little  examination  will  show  that  such  facts  are  Ijut  exemplifications 
of  the  general  principle,  just  as  the  rise  of  a  balloon  and  the  fall  of  a  stone  both 
exemplify  the  universal  law  of  gravitation.  .  .  The  value  of  everything  produced  by 
labor,  from  a  pound  of  chalk  or  a  paper  of  pins  to  the  elaborate  structure  and  appur- 
tenances of  a  first-class  ocean  steamer,  is  resolvable  on  analysis  into  an  equivalent  of 
the  labor  required  to  produce  such  a  thing  in  form  and  place  ;  while  the  value  of  things 
not  produced  by  labor,  but  nevertheless  susceptible  of  ownership,  is  in  the  same  way 
resolvable  into  an  equivalent  of  the  labor  which  the  ownership  of  such  a  thing  enables 
the  owner  to  obtain  or  save." — Perplexed  Philosopher^  ch,  v. 


82 


OUTLINES    OF   POST  S   LECTURFS. 


and  ''  surplus  labor "  would  be  crowded  out  to  the 
open  space  that  originally  yielded  nothing,  but  which 
in  consequence  of  increased  labor  power  now  yields  as 
much  as  the  poorest  closed  space  originally  yielded, 
namely,  i  to  the  given  expenditure  of  labor  force.'"" 
Wages  would  then  be  reduced  to  the  present  produc- 
tiveness of  the  open  space.     Thus: 


VACLS 

I     /    (/)   •/ 

L 

fr^ 

JO 

10 

J 

/ 

mi 

//     ff     (?)    2 

0     . 

If  we  assume  that  i  for  the  given  expenditure  of 
labor  force  is  the  least  that  labor  can  take  while  exert- 
ing the  same  force,  the  downward  movement  of  Wages 
will  be  here  held  in  equilibrium.  They  cannot  fall 
below  I  ;  but  neither  can  they  rise  above  it,  no  matter 
\\o\\  much  productive  power  may  increase,  so  long  as 
it  pays  to  hold  land  for  higher  values.     Some  laborers 

I02.  The  paradise  to  which  the  youth  of  our  country  have  so  long  been  directed  in 
the  advice,  "  Go  West,  young  man,  go  West,"  is  truthfully  described  in  "Progress 
and  Poverty,''  book  iv,  ch.  iv,  as  follows  : 

"  The  man  who  sets  out  from  the  eastern  seaboard  in  search  of  the  margin  of  cul- 
tivation, where  he  maj'  obtain  land  without  paying  rent,  must,  like  the  man  who 
swam  the  river  to  get  a  drink,  pass  for  long  distances  through  half-tilled  farms,  and 
traverse  vast  areas  of  virgin  soil,  before  he  reaches  the  point  where  land  can  be  had 
free  of  rent — /.  e.,  by  homestead  entry  or  preemption." 


HARD    TIMES.  83 

would  continually  be  pushed  back  to  land  which  in- 
creased productive  power  would  have  brought  up  in 
productiveness  from  o  to  i,  and  by  perpetual  competi- 
tion for  work  would  so  regulate  the  labor  market  that 
the  given  expenditure  of  labor  force,  however  much 
it  produced,  could  nowhere  secure  more  than  i  in 
Wages.'"'  And  this  tendency  would  persist  until  some 
labor  was  forced  upon  land  which,  despite  increase  in 
productive  power,  would  not  yield  the  accustomed  liv- 
ing without  increase  of  labor  force.  Competition  for 
work  would  then  compel  all  laborers  to  increase  their 
expenditure  of  labor  force,  and  to  do  it  over  and  over 
again  as  progress  went  on  and  lower  and  lower  grades 
of  land  were  monopolized,  until  human  endurance 
could  cro  no  further.""  Either  that,  or  thev  would  be 
obliged  to  adapt  themselves  to  a  lower  scale  of  living.'"^ 
They   in   fact   do   both,  and  the  incidental    disturb- 

103.  Henry  Favvcett,  in  his  work  on  "  Political  Economy,"  book  ii,  ch.  ill, 
-observes  with  reference  to  improvements  in  agricultural  implements  which  diminish 
the  expense  of  cultivation,  that  they  do  not  increase  the  profits  of  the  farmer  or  the 
wages  of  his  laborers,  but  that  "•  the  landlord  will  receive  in  addition  to  the  rent 
already  paid  to  him,  all  that  is  saved  in  the  expense  of  cultivation."  This  is  true  not 
alone  of  improvements  in  agriculture,  but  also  of  improvements  in  all  other  branches 
of  industry. 

104.  "The  cause  which  limits  speculation  in  commodities,  the  tendency  of 
increasing  price  to  draw  forth  additional  supplies,  cannot  limit  the  speculative  advance 
in  land  values,  as  land  is  a  fixed  quantity,  which  human  agency  can  neither  increase 
nor  diminish  ;  but  there  is  nevertheless  a  limit  to  the  price  of  land,  in  the  minimum 
Tequired  by  labor  and  capital  as  the  condition  of  engaging  in  production.  If  it  were  pos- 
sible to  continuously  reduce  wages  until  zero  were  reached,  it  would  be  possible  to 
continuously  increase  rent  until  it  swallowed  up  the  whole  produce.  But  as  wages 
cannot  be  permanently  reduced  below  the  point  at  which  laborers  will  consent  to  work 
and  reproduce,  nor  interest  below  tlie  point  at  which  capital  will  be  devoted  to  pro- 
duction, there  is  a  limit  which  restrains  the  speculative  advance  of  rent.  Hence, 
speculation  cannot  have  the  same  scope  to  advance  rent  in  countries  where  wages  and 
interest  are  already  near  the  minimum,  as  in  countries  where  they  are  considerably 
above  it.  Yet  that  there  is  in  all  progressive  countries  a  constant  tendency  in  the 
speculative  advance  of  rent  to  overpass  the  limit  where  production  would  cease,  is,  I 
think,  shown  by  recurring  seasons  of  industrial  paralysis." — Progress  and  Poverty, 
book  iv,  ch.  iz'. 

105.  As  Puck  once  put  it,  "  the  man  who  makes  two  blades  of  grass  to  grow  where 
but  one  grew  before,  must  not  be  surprised  when  ordered  to  '  keep  off  the  grass.'  " 


84  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LFXTURES. 

ances  of  general  readjustment  are  what  we  call  "hard 
times,"  ^"°  These  culminate  in  forcing  unused  land  into 
the  market,  thereby  reducing  Rent  and  reviving  in- 
dustry. Thus  increase  of  labor  force,  a  lowering  of 
the  scale  of  living,  and  depression  of  Rent,  co-operate 
to  bring  on  what  we  call  ^'  good  times."  But  no  sooner 
do  *'  good  times "  return  than  renewed  demands  for 
land  set  in.  Rent  rises  again.  Wages  fall  again,  and 
*'  hard  times  "  duly  reappear.  The  end  of  every  period 
of  "hard  times"  finds  Rent  higher  and  Wages  lower 
than  at  the  end  of  the  previous  period.'" 

The  dishonest  and  disorderly  system  under  which 
society  confiscates  Rent  from  common  to  individual 
uses,  produces  this  result.  That  maladjustment  is  the 
fundamental  cause  of  poverty.  And  progress,  so  long 
as  the  maladjustment  continues,  instead  of  tending 
to  remove  poverty  as  naturally  it  should,  actually 
generates  and  intensifies  it.  Poverty  persists  with  in- 
crease of  productive  power  because  land  values,  when 
Rent  is  privately  appropriated,  tend  to  even  greater 
increase.  There  can  be  but  one  outcome  if  this  con- 
tinues :  for  individuals  suffering  and  degradation,  and 
for  society  destruction. 

io6.  "  That  a  speculative  advance  in  rent  or  land  values  invariably  precedes 
each  of  these  seasons  of  industrial  depression  is  everywhere  clear.  That  they  bear 
to  each  other  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  is  obvious  to  whoever  considers  the 
necessary  relation  between  land  and  labor." — Frog-ress  and  Poverty,  book  v,  ch.  i. 

107.  What  are  called  "good  times"  reach  a  point  at  which  an  upward  land  market 
sets  in.  From  that  point  there  is  a  downward  tendency  of  wages  (or  a  rise  in  the  cost  of 
living,  which  is  the  same  thing)  in  all  departments  of  labor  and  with  all  grades  of 
laborers.  This  tendency  continues  until  the  fictitious  values  of  land  give  way.  So 
long  as  the  tendency  is  felt  only  by  that  class  which  is  hired  for  wages,  it  is  poverty 
merely ;  when  the  same  tendency  is  felt  by  the  class  of  labor  that  is  distinguished  as  "  the 
business  interests  of  the  country,"  it  is  "hard  times."  And  "hard  times"  are 
periodical  because  land  values,  by  falling,  allow  "  good  times  "  to  set  it,  and  by  rising 
with  "  good  times  "  bring  "  hard  times  "  on  again.  The  effect  of  "  hard  times  "  may 
be  overcome,  without  much,  if  any,  fall  in  land  values,  by  sufficient  increase  in  pro-^ 
ductive  power  to  overtake  the  fictitious  value  of  land. 


RETAINING    RENT   FOR   COMMON    USE. 


85 


e.     Effect  of  Retaining  Rent  for  Conunon   Use. 

If  society  retained  Rent  for  common  purposes,  all 
incentive  to  hold  land  for  any  other  object  than  imme- 
diate use  would  disappear.  The  effect  may  be  illus- 
trated by  a  comparison  of  the  last  preceding  chart  with 
the  following  : 


There  is  but  one  difference  between  this  chart  and 
the  chart  immediately  preceding.  In  that  Rent  is  con- 
fiscated to  private  use,  whereas  in  this  Rent  is  re- 
tained for  common  use.  All  the  labor  force  indicated 
with  red  in  the  first  of  the  two  charts  would  not  more 
than  utilize  the  space  to  the  left  and  part  of  the  ad- 
joining one,  which  would  elevate  Wages  to  what,  with 
the  given  labor  force,  could  be  produced  from  the 
poorer  of  the  two  spaces.  After  that,  increase  of  Rent 
^vould  not  enrich  land-owners  at  the  expense  of  other 
classes;  it  would  enrich  the  whole  community. ^""^ 

io8.  The  laborer  would  receive  in  Distribution  all  that   he    earned  and  no    more 
•than  he  earned  in  Production  ;  and  that  is  the  natural  law. 


86  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

f.     The  Siyigle  Tax  Retains  Rent  for  Common   Use, 

To  retain  Rent  for  common  use  it  is  not  necessarjr 
to  abolish  land-titles,  nor  to  let  land  out  to  the  highest 
bidder,  nor  to  invent  some  new  mechanism  of  taxa- 
tion, nor  in  any  other  way  to  directly  change  existing 
modes  of  holding  land  for  use,  or  existing  machinery 
for  collecting  public  revenues.  ''Great  changes  can  be 
best  brought  about  under  old   forms.'""^     Let  land  be 

In  social  conditions,  where  industry  is  sub-divided  and  trade  is  intricate,  it  is. 
impossible  to  say  arbitrarily  what  is  the  equivalent  of  given  labor.  Hence  no  statute 
fixing  the  compensation  for  labor  can  really  be  operative.  All  that  we  can  say  is  that 
labor  is  worth  what  men  freely  contract  to  give  and  take  for  it.  But  it  must  be  what 
thej'  freely  contract  to  take  as  well  as  what  they  freely  contract  lo  give ;  and  men  are 
not  free  to  contract  for  the  sale  of  their  labor  when  labor  generally  is  so  divorced  from 
land  as  to  abnormally  glut  the  labor  market  and  make  men's  sale  of  their  labor  for 
almost  anything  the  buyer  offers,  the  alternative  of  starvation.  Laborers  may  be  as. 
truly  enslaved  by  divorcing  Hbor  from  land  as  by  driving  them  with  a  whip. 

109.  "  Such  dupes  are  men  to  custom,  and  so  prone 

To  rev'rence  what  is  ancient  and  can  plead 

A  course  of  long  observance  for  its  use, 

That  even  servitude,  the  worst  of  ills, 

Because  delivered  down  from  sire  to  son 

Is  kept  and  guarded  as  a  sacred  thing." 

—  Cowper. 

It  is  only  custom  that  makes  the  ownership  of  land  seem  reasonable.  I  have  fre-^ 
quently  had  occasion  to  tell  of  the  necessity  under  which  the  city  of  Cleveland,  Ohio, 
found  itself,  of  paying  a  land-owner  several  thousand  dollars  for  the  right  to  swing 
a  bridge-draw  over  his  land.  When  I  described  the  matter  in  that  way,  the  story- 
attracted  no  attention  ;  it  seemed  perfectly  reasonable  to  the  ordinary  lecture  audience 
But  when  I  described  the  transaction  as  a  payment  by  the  city  to  a  land-owner  of 
thousands  of  dollars  for  the  privilege  of  .swinging  the  draw  "  through  that  man's  air,"" 
the  audience  invariably  manifested  its  appreciation  of  the  absurdity  of  such  aiv 
ownership.  The  idea  of  owning  air  was  ridiculous  ;  the  idea  of  owning  land  was  not.- 
Yet  who  can  explain  the  difference,  except  as  a  matter  of  custom  ? 

To  the  same  effect  was  the  question  of  the  Rev.  F.  L.  Higgins  to  a  friend.  While- 
stationed  at  Galveston,  Tex.,  Mr.  Higgins  fell  into  a  discussion  with  his  friend  as  to^ 
the  right  of  government  to  make  land  private  property.  The  friend  argued  that  no- 
matter  what  the  abstract  right  might  be,  the  government  had  made  private  property  of 
land,  and  people  had  bought  and  sold  upon  the  strength  of  the  government  title,  and 
therefore  land  titles  were  morally  absolute. 

"  Suppose,"  said  Mr.  Higgins,  "  that  the  government  should  vest  in  a  corporation 
title  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  so  that  no  one  could  fish  there,  or  sail  there,  or  do  anything 
in  or  upon  the  waters  of  the  Gulf  without  permission  from  the  corporation.  Would 
that  be  right  ?" 


THE   SINGLE   TAX.  8/ 

held  nominally  as  it  is  now.  Let  taxes  be  collected 
by  the  same  kind  of  machinery  as  now.  But  abolish 
all  taxes  except  those  that  fall  upon  actual  and  poten- 
tial Rent,  that  is  to  say,  upon  land  values. 

If  that  were  done  it  is  doubtful  if  land-owners 
could  any  longer  confiscate  enough  Rent  to  be  worth 
the  trouble.  Even  though  some  surplus  were  still 
kept  by  them,  it  would  be  so  much  more  easy  to 
secure  Wealth  by  working  for  it  than  by  confiscating 
Rent  to  private  use,  to  say  nothing  of  its  being  so 
much  more  respectable,  that  speculation  in  land  values 
would  practically  be  abandoned.  At  any  rate,  the 
question  of  a  surplus — Rent  in  excess  of  the  require- 
ments of  the  community — may  be  readily  determined 
when  the  principle  that  Rent  justly  belongs  to  the 
community  and  Wages  to  the  individual  shall  have 
been  recognized  by  society  in  the  adoption  of  the 
Single  Tax.' 


110 


"  No,"  answered  the  friend. 

"  Well,  suppose  the  corporation  should  then  parcel  out  the  Gulf  to  different  parties 
until  some  of  the  people  came  to  own  the  whole  Gulf  to  the  exclusion  of  everybody  else, 
born  and  unborn.  Could  any  such  title  be  acquired  by  these  purchasers,  or  their 
descendants  or  assignees,  as  that  the  rest  of  the  people  if  they  got  the  power  would 
not  have  a  moral  right  to  abrogate  it  ?" 

"  Certainly  not,"  said  the  friend. 

"  Could  private  titles  to  the  Gulf  possibly  become  absolute  in  morals?" 

"  No." 

"  Then  tell  me,"  asked  Mr.  Higgins,  "  what  difference  it  would  make  if  all  the 
water  were  taken  off  the  Gulf  and  only  the  bare  land  left." 

no.  Thomas  G.  Shearman,  Esq.,  of  New  York,  author  of  the  famous  magazine 
article  on  "  Who  Owns  the  United  States,"  estimates  that  sixty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
present  annual  value  of  the  land  in  the  United  States  would  pay  all  the  present 
expenses  of  American  government — federal,  state,  county,  and  municipal. 


88  OUTLINES   OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 


IV.     CONCLUSION. 

In  ''  Progress  and  Poverty,"  after  reaching  his  con-, 
elusion  that  command  of  the  land  which  is  necessary 
for  labor  is  command  of  all  the  fruits  of  labor  save 
enough  to  enable  labor  to  exist,  Henry  George  says: 

So  simple  and  so  clear  is  this  truth  that  to  fully  see  it  once  is 
always  to  recognize  it.  There  are  pictures  which,  though  looked 
at  again  and  again,  present  only  a  confused  labyrinth  of  lines  or 
scroll-work — a  landscape,  trees,  or  something  of  the  kind — until 
once  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  these  things  make  up  a 
face  or  a  figure.  This  relation  once  recognized  is  always  after- 
ward clear."'  It  is  so  in  this  case.  In  the  light  of  this  truth  all 
social  facts  group  themselves  in  an  orderly  relation,  and  the  most 
diverse  phenomena  are  seen  to  spring  from  one  great  principle. 


iir.  This  idea  of  the  concealed  picture  was  graphically  illustrated  with  a  story  by 
Congressman  James  G.  Maguire,  at  that  time  a  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court  of  San 
Francisco,  in  a  speech  at  the  Academy  of  Music,  New  York  City,  in  1887.  In  sub- 
stance he  said  : 

"  I  was  one  day  walking  along  Kearney  Street  in  San  Francisco,  when  I  noticed 
a  crowd  around  the  show  window  of  a  store,  looking  at  something  inside.  I  took 
a  glance  myself  and  saw  only  a  very  poor  picture  of  a  very  uninteresting  landscape 
But  as  I  was  turning  away  my  eye  caught  the  words  underneath  the  picture,  *  Do 
you  see  the  cat  ? '  I  looked  again  and  more  closely,  but  saw  no  cat  in  the  picture. 
Then  I  spoke  to  the  crowd. 

"  '  Gentlemen,'  I  said,  '  I  see  no  cat  in  that  picture.     Is  there  a  cat  there  ? ' 

Some  one  in  the  crowd  replied  : 

"  '  Naw,  there  ain't  no  cat  there.  Here's  a  crank  who  says  he  sees  the  cat.  but 
nobody  else  can  see  it.' 

"  Then  the  crank  spoke  up  : 

"  '  I  tell  you  there  is  a  cat  there,  too.  It's  all  cat.  What  you  fellows  take  for 
a  landscape  is  just  nothing  more  than  the  outlines  of  a  cat.  And  you  needn't  call  a 
man  a  crank  either,  because  he  can  see  more  with  his  eyes  than  3'ou  can.' 

"  Well,"  the  judge  continued,  "  I  looked  very  closely  at  the  picture,  and  then 
I  said  to  the  man  they  called  a  crank  : 

"  '  Really,  sir,  I  cannot  make  out  a  cat.  I  can  see  nothing  but  a  poor  picture  of 
a  landscape.' 

"'Why,  judge,'  he  exclaimed,  'just  look  at  that  bird  in  the  air.  That's  the 
cat's  ear.' 

"  I  looked,  but  was  obliged  to  say  : 

"  '  I  am  sorry  to  be  so  stupid,  but  I  can't  make  a  cat's  ear  of  that  bird.  It  is 
a  poor  bird,  but  not  a  cat's  ear.' 


CONCLUSION.  89 

Many  events  subsequent  to  his  writing  have  gone  to 
prove  that  Henry  George  was  right.  Each  new  phase 
of  the  social  problem  makes  it  still  more  clear  that  the 
disorderly  development  of  our  civilization  is  explained, 
not  by  pressure  of  population,  nor  by  the  superficial 
relations  of  employers  and  employed,  nor  by  scarcity 
of  money,  nor  by  the  drinking  habits  of  the  poor,  nor 
by  individual  differences  in  ability  to  produce  wealth, 
nor  by  an  incompetent  or  malevolent  Creator,  but,  as 
he  has  said,  by  "  inequality  in  the  ownership  of  land." 
And  each  new  phase  makes  it  equally  clear  that  the 
remedy  for  poverty  is  not  to  be  found  in  famine 
and  disease  and  war,  nor  in  strikes  which  are  akin  to 
war,  nor  in  the  suppression  of  strikes  by  force  of  arms, 
nor  in  the  coinage  of  money,  nor  in  prohibition  or  high 
license,  nor  in  technical  education,  nor  in  anything  else 
short  of  approximate  equality  in  the  ownership  of  land. 
This  alone  secures  equal  opportunities  to  produce,  and 
full  ownership  by  each  producer  of  his  own  product. 
This  is  justice,  this  is  order.     And  unless  our  civiliza- 


" '  Well,  then,'  the  crank  urged,  '  look  at  that  twig  twirled  around  in  a  circle. 
That's  the  cat's  eye.' 

"  But  I  couldn't  make  an  eye  of  it. 

"  '  Oh,  then,'  said  the  crank  a  little  impatiently,  '  look  at  those  sprouts  at  the  foot 
of  the  tree,  and  the  grass.     They  make  the  cat's  claws.' 

"  After  another  deliberate  examination,  I  reported  that  they  did  look  a  little  like 
a  claw,  but  I  couldn't  connect  them  with  a  cat. 

"  Once  more  the  crank  came  back  at  me.  '  Don't  you  see  that  limb  ofl  there  ? 
and  that  other  limb  under  it  ?  and  that  white  space  between  ?  Well,  that  white  space 
is  the  cat's  tail.' 

"  I  looked  again  and  was  just  on  the  point  of  replying  that  there  was  no  cat  there 
so  far  as  I  could  see,  when  suddenly  the  whole  cat  burst  upon  me.  There  it  was,  sure 
enough,  just  as  the  crank  had  said  ;  and  the  only  reason  that  the  rest  of  us  couldn't 
see  it  was  that  we  hadn't  got  the  right  point  of  view.  But  now  that  I  saw  it  I  could 
see  nothing  else  in  the  picture.  The  landscape  had  disappeared  and  a  cat  had  taken 
its  place.  And,  do  you  know,  I  was  never  afterward  able,  upon  looking  at  that 
picture,  to  see  anything  in  it  but  the  cat !  " 

From  this  story  as  told  by  Judge  Maguire,  has  come  the  slang  of  the  single  tax 
agitation.     To  "  see  the  cat  "  is  to  understand  the  single  tax. 


QO  OUTLINES  OF   POST'S   LECTURES. 

tion  have  it  for  a  foundation,  new  forms  of  slavery  will 
assuredly  lead  us  into  new  forms  of  barbarism. ""^ 

112.  "  Our  primary  social  adjustment  is  a  denial  of  justice.  In  allowing  one  man 
to  own  the  land  on  which  and  from  which  other  men  must  live,  we  have  made  them 
his  bondsmen  in  a  degree  which  increases  as  material  progress  goes  on.  This  is  the 
subtile  alchemy  that  in  ways  they  do  not  realize  is  extracting  from  the  masses  in  every 
civilized  country  the  fruits  of  their  weary  toil  ;  that  is  instituting  a  harder  and  more 
hopeless  slavery  in  place  of  that  which  has  been  destroyed  ;  that  is  bringing  political 
despotism  out  of  political  freedom,  and  must  soon  transmute  democratic  institutions 
into  anarchy. 

"  It  is  this  that  turns  the  blessings  of  material  progress  into  a  curse.  It  is  this 
that  crowds  human  beings  into  noisome  cellars  and  squalid  tenement  houses  ;  that  fills 
prisons  and  brothels  ;  that  goads  men  with  want  and  consumes  them  with  greed  ;  that 
robs  women  of  the  grace  and  beauty  of  perfect  womanhood  ;  that  takes  from  little 
children  the  joy  and  innocence  of  life's  morning. 

"  Civilization  so  based  cannot  continue.  The  eternal  laws  of  the  universe  forbid 
it.  Ruins  of  dead  empires  testify,  and  the  witness  that  is  in  every  soul  answers,  that 
it  cannot  be.  It  is  something  grander  than  Benevolence,  something  more  august  than 
Charity — it  is  Justice  herself  that  demands  of  us  to  right  this  wrong.  Justice  that 
will  not  be  denied  ;  that  cannot  be  put  off — Justice  that  with  the  scales  carries  the 
sword." — Progress  and  Poverty ,  book  x,  ch.  v. 


APPENDIX. 


BRIEF   ANSWERS   TO   TYPICAL   QUESTIONS. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  single  tax  as  a  panacea  for  all  social  dis- 
ease ? 

A.  When  William  Lloyd  Garrison  announced  his  conversion  to 
the  single  tax  in  a  letter  to  Henry  George,  he  took  pains  to  state 
that  he  did  not  believe  it  to  be  a  panacea,  and  Mr.  George  replied  : 
•'  Neither  do  I  ;  but  I  believe  that  freedom  is."  Your  question 
may  be  answered  in  the  same  way.  Freedom  is  the  panacea  for 
social  wrongs  and  the  ills  they  breed,  and  the  single  tax  principle 
is  the  tap-root  of  freedom. 

O.  Would  the  single  tax  yield  revenue  sufficient  for  all  kinds  of 
government  ? 

A.  Thomas  G.  Shearman,  Esq.,  of  New  York,  estimates  that 
sixty-five  per  cent,  of  tlie  rent  that  the  land  in  the  United 
States  now  yields  actually  and  potentially  to  its  owners,  would 
be  sufficient.  But  whether  it  would  or  not  is  as  yet  an  unimpor- 
tant question.  If  all  revenues  ought  to  be  raised  from  land  values, 
then  no  revenues  should  be  drawn  from  other  sources  while  any 
land  value  remains  in  private  possession.  Until  land  values  are 
exhausted  the  taxation  of  labor  cannot  be  excused. 

Q.  In  an  interior  or  frontier  town,  where  land  has  but  little 
value,  how  would  you  raise  enough  money  for  schools,  highways, 
and  other  public  needs  ? 

A.  There  is  no  town  whose  finances  are  reasonably  managed  in 
which  the  land  values  are  insufficient  for  local  needs.  Schools, 
highways,  and  so  forth,  are  not  local  but  general,  and  should  be 
maintained  from  the  land  values  of  the  state  at  large. 

Q.  What  disposition  would  you  make  of  the  revenues  that 
exceeded  the  needs  of  government  ? 

A.  The  people  who  ask  this  question  ought  to  settle  it  with 
those  who  want  to  know  whether  the  single  tax  would  yield 
revenue  enough.     I  do  not  believe  that  public  revenues  under  the 

91 


/ 


92  APPENDIX. 

single  tax  would  exceed  the  just  needs  of  economical  government; 
in  better  highways,  better  sidewalks,  better  wharves,  better  schools, 
better  public  service  of  various  kinds,  we  should  find  sufficient 
demand  for  all  our  revenues.  But  the  question  of  deficiency  or 
surplus  is  one  to  be  met  and  disposed  of  when  it  arises.  The 
present  question  is  the  wisdom  and  the  justice  of  applying  land 
values  to  common  use,  as  far  as  they  will  go  or  as  much  of  them  as 
may  be  needed  as  the  case  may  prove  to  be. 

Q.  If  the  full  rental  value  were  taken  would  it  not  produce  too 
jnuch  revenue  and  encourage  official  extravagance  ?  If  only  what 
was  needed  for  an  economical  administration  of  government,  would 
not  land  still  have  a  speculative  value  ? 

A.  In  the  first  part  of  your  question  you  are  thinking  of  a  vast 
centralized  government  as  administering  public  revenues.  With 
the  revenues  raised  locally,  each  locality  being  assessed  for  its  con- 
tribution to  the  state  and  the  nation,  there  would  be  no  such 
danger.  The  possibility  of  this  danger  would  be  still  further  re- 
duced by  the  fact  that  private  business  would  then  offer  greater 
pecuniary  prizes  than  would  public  office,  wherefore  public  office 
would  be  sought  for  purer  purposes  than  as  money-making  oppor- 
tunities. As  to  the  second  part  of  your  question,  the  speculative 
value  of  land  would  be  wiped  out  as  soon  as  the  tax  on  land  values 
was  high  enough  and  that  on  improvement  values  low  enough  to 
make  production  more  profitable  than  speculation.  And  this  point 
would  be  reached  long  before  the  whole  rental  value  was  absorbed 
in  taxation. 

O.  If  a  land-owner  builds,  does  not  that  increase  the  value  of  his 
land  and  consequently  the  amount  of  the  tax  he  would  have  to 
pay?     If  so,  would  not  he  be  taxed  for  his  improvement  ? 

A.  No.  Upon  the  value  of  the  building  he  would  never  pay  any 
tax.  It  is  true  that  his  improvement  might  attract  others  to  the 
locality  in  such  numbers  as  to  make  land  there  scarcer  and  con- 
sequently dearer.  His  own  lot  would  in  that  case  rise  in  value 
with  the  other  land  and  be  taxed  more,  just  as  the  rest  would  be. 
But  that  would  not  take  any  of  his  labor  in  taxes  ;  he  would  still 
have  his  building  free  of  taxation.  Thus  :  If  on  a  lot  worth  $1000 
a  building  worth  $1000  were  erected,  making  the  whole  worth 
$2000,  the  tax  would  fall  only  upon  the  $1000  which  represents 
the  value  of  the  lot.  If  land  then  became  so  scarce  that  the  lot 
rose  in  value  to  $1500  the  tax  would  be  raised.     But  the  owner's 


ANSWERS  TQ  QUESTIONS.  93 

improvement  would  be  still  exempt.  When  his  property  was 
worth  $2000  he  was  taxed  on  $1000,  the  value  of  the  lot,  leaving 
$1000,  the  value  of  the  building-,  free  ;  and  now,  though  he  is  taxed 
on  $1500,  the  value  of  the  lot,  $1000,  the  value  of  the  building,  is 
still  free. 

Q.  If  a  man  owns  a  city  lot  with  a  $5000  building  on  it,  what, 
under  the  single  tax,  would  hinder  another  man,  perhaps  with  hos- 
tile intent,  from  bidding  a  higher  tax  than  the  first  man  was  able 
to  pay,  and  thus  ousting  him  from  his  building? 

A.  The  question  rests  upon  a  misapprehension  of  method.  The 
single  tax  is  not  a  method  of  nationalizing  land  and  renting  it  out 
to  the  highest  bidder.  It  is  a  method  of  taxation.  And  it  would 
not  only  hinder,  it  would  prevent  the  unjust  ousting  of  another 
from  his  building.  The  single  tax  falls  upon  land-owners  in  pro- 
portion to  the  unimprov^ed  value  of  their  land  ;  and  this  value  is 
determined  by  the  real  estate  market — by  the  demands  of  the  whole 
community — and  not  by  arbitrary  bids.  No  one  could  oust  a  man 
from  his  building  by  bidding  more  for  the  land  on  which  it  stood 
than  the  occupier  was  paying  ;  the  single  tax  would  not  be  in- 
creased in  any  case  unless  the  land  upon  which  it  fell  was  in  so 
much  greater  demand  that  the  owner  could  let  it  for  a  higher  rent. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  expense  of  collecting  the  single  tax  as 
compared  with  that  of  collecting  present  taxes  ? 

A.  Much  less.     It  is  easier  to  assess  fairly,  and  easier  to  collect 

fully ;     the   machinery   of    assessment   and   collection    would   be 

simpler  and  cheaper,  and  it  would  not  enable  first  payers  to  collect 

the  tax  with  profits  upon  it  from  ultimate  payers. 

Q.  How  would  you  estimate  land  values  ? 

A.  As  we  do  it  now.  As  real  estate  dealers  estimate  them.  As 
appraisers  in  partition  would  estimate  them.     Read  note  28. 

O.  How  would  you  value  the  land  of  a  farm  when  all  the  land 
of  the  neighborhood  was  fully  improved  ? 

A.   By  ascertainnig  the  value  per  square  rod   of  the  adjacent 

highway.     The  value  of  that,  for  the  purpose  of  adding  it  to  the 

farms  along  which  it  runs,   would  denote  the  land  value  of  the 

farms.     Read  notes  4  and  28. 

O.  How  can  mines  be  taxed  without  increasing  the  price  of  the 
out-put  ? 

A.  By  taxing  the  royalty,  or,  what  is  essentially  the  same,  by 

taxing  their  capitalized  value  as  mining  opportunities.-   This  would 


jT 


h'SlYl&iA.^ii.Yfi 


94  APPENDIX. 

tend  to  lower  rather  than  increase  the  price  of  the  product.     Read 
note  1 1. 

O.  How  would  the  single  tax  be  assessed  on  a  railroad  which 
passed  through  a  farm  worth  (without  its  improvements)  $30  an 
acre  ? 

A.  According  to  the  value,  not  of  the  adjacent  farms,  but  of  the 

total  right  of  way,  much  as  the  value  of  a  navigable  river  might  be 

determined  if  it  were  private  property. 

Q.  How  would  you  assess  the  land  value  tax  of  a  man  who,  by 
making  levees,  had  reclaimed  land  from  the  Mississippi  ?  Say  that 
the  land  when  reclaimed  was  worth  $50  an  acre,  but  that  the  levees 
cost  a  great  deal  less. 

A.  The  fact  that  the  levees  cost  less  than  the  value  of  the  land 

when  reclaimed,  shows  that   the  opportunity  for  reclaiming  such 

land  has  a  value.     That   value,  the  value   of  the   opportunity  to 

reclaim,  is  the  land  value  of  the  property,  and  would  be  the  basis 

of  the  tax. 

Q.  How  would  you  adjust  mortgages  to  the  single  tax  scheme  ? 

A.  Mortgages  are  modified  deeds,  and  mortgagees  are  land- 
owners in  degree.  I  would  make  no  adjustment,  but  would  warn 
mortgageors  and  mortgagees  to  adjust  their  interests  as  they  see 
fit  when  they  make  their  mortgages,  just  as  I  would  warn  buyers 
and  sellers  of  land  to  guard  their  interests  as  between  themselves 
by  their  contracts.  Full  notice  has  now  been  giv'en  that  as  soon 
as  possible  and  as  fast  as  possible  we  propose  to  induce  the  people 
to  bring  about  a  condition  in  which  land  values  will  be  taken  for 
public  use  and  improvement  values  be  left  for  private  use.  People 
who  in  the  face  of  this  notice  neglect  to  protect  themselves  in  their 
contracts  have  no  one  else  to  blame  if  when  the  change  comes 
they  suffer  pecuniary  loss  in  the  re-adjustment. 

O.  How  will  the  single  tax  affect  leases  already  made  }  Will 
the  loss  of  declining  values  fall  upon  the  owner  or  the  lessee  ? 

A.  That  will  depend  upon  the  covenants  in  the  lease.  It 
behooves  tenants  to  see  to  it  that  their  leases  contain  provisions  in 
this  respect.  If  they  fail  to  protect  themselves  they  cannot  com- 
plain in  case  they  suffer  when  the  single  tax  comes  into  operation. 
They  will  have  had  ample  warning,  and  their  misfortune  will  be 
due  to  their  own  negligence. 

Q.  Should  the  whole  rental  value  of  land  be  taken  for  common 
use,  or  only  enough  for  government  purposes  ? 


ANSWERS   TO   QUESTIONS.  95 

A.  Only  enough  for  government  purposes.  When  the  people 
see  that  this  method  of  taxation  improves  business,  increases 
wages,  cheapens  land,  and  generally  promotes  prosperity,  they 
will  not  hesitate  to  increase  their  taxes  so  long  as  public  improve- 
ments are  needed  and  land  values  are  unexhausted.  As  is  said  in 
"  Progress  and  Poverty  "  (book  viii,  ch.  ii) :  "  When  the  common 
right  to  land  is  so  far  appreciated  that  all  taxes  are  abolished  save  . 
those  which  fall  upon  rent,  there  is  no  danger  of  much  more  than 
is  necessary  to  induce  them  to  collect  the  public  revenues  being 
left  to  individual  landholders." 

Q.  How  would  the  tax  be  collected  from  those  who  neglected 
or  refused  to  pay  ? 

A.  As  individuals  may  now  collect  rent  from  tenants  who  refuse 

to  pay :  by  suing  for  the  tax,  or   evicting  the  occupant,  or  both  if 

necessary.     I  think,  however,  that  the  public  would  deal  more  justly 

with  occupants  than  landlords  do  with  ground  renters.     I  think 

it  would  compensate  for  any  loss  in  respect  of  improvements. 

Q.  How  would   you   reach   the   bondholder,  or  the  man  with 
money  alone  ? 

A.  Why  should  we  wish  to  reach  him  if  his  bonds  or  his  money 
represent  labor  products  to  which  he  has  honestly  acquired  a  just 
title  ?  This  question  is  a  legitimate  offspring  of  the  plundering 
theory  that  men  should  be  taxed  according  to  their  ability  to  pay, 
the  merits  of  which  are  considered  on  pages  7-9.  It  is  a  question 
which  may  also  have  been  suggested  by  the  fact  that  "  bond- 
holders "  and  "  men  of  money  "  are  so  often  men  who  have  special 
privileges  which  coin  money  for  them.  There  is  a  feeling  that  , 
it  would  be  unfair  to  allow  such  special  privileges  to  escape 
taxation.  It  would  be.  But  inquiry  will  show  that  the  most 
important  of  these  privileges  rest  in  the  ownership  of  land,  and  . 
that  the  "  bondholders  "  and  "  men  of  money  "  w^hom  the  ques- 
tioner probably  has  in  mind,  are  in  fact  great  landlords ;  that  is 
to  say,  that  their  fortunes  are  really  based  upon  land.  When 
land  values  were  taxed,  the  great  source  of  unearned  incomes — land 
monopoly — would  be  practically  abolished,  and  bondholders  and 
men  of  money  would  be  only  those  who  earn  what  they  have.  Such 
property  no  man  of  honest  instincts  should  wish  to  expropriate, 

Q.  In  your  lecture  you  tell  of  a  meteorite  which  a  poor  man 
found,  but  which  the  law  gave  to  the  owner  of  the  land  on  which    . 
it   fell.     (See  note   100.)     Wouldn't  the  owner,  or  possessor,  or 


96  APPENDIX. 

whatever  you  choose  to  call  him,  of  that  land  get  the  meteorite 
just  the  same  if  the  single  tax  were  in  force  ? 

A.  Yes,  if  only  one  meteorite  fell  upon  his  land.  But  if  meteo- 
rites got  into  the  habit  of  falling  there  the  land  would  grew  in 
value,  and  then  the  single  tax  would  operate  to  take  the  value  of 
those  meteorites  for  common  use,  less  the  labor  expended  upon 
them,  the  value  of  which  would  go  to  the  laborer.  I  told  of  the 
one  meteorite  to  illustrate  a  principle.  But  as  a  practical  question 
we  need  deal  only  with  land  upon  which,  speaking  in  metaphor, 
meteorites  have  a  habit  of  falling.  The  occasional  diamond,  the 
nugget  of  gold,  or  other  valuable  thing  found  here  or  there  as  one 
of  the  accidents  of  a  day,  are  of  no  practical  moment ;  it  is  the 
diamond  fields,  the  gold  mines,  the  fertile  farming  spots,  the 
centers  of  trade,  and  similar  valuable  opportunities  for  labor,  that 
are  of  moment  as  factors  in  social  problems. 

Q.  Would  not  the  single  tax  increase  the  rent  of  houses  ? 

A.  No.  It  takes  taxes  off  buildings  and  materials,  thus  mak- 
ing it  cheaper  to  build  houses.  How  can  house  rent  go  up  as 
the  cost  of  building  houses  goes  down  ?  Read  pp.  5  to  8  and  the 
related  notes. 

Q.  Do  not  the  benefits  of  good  government  increase  the  value  of 
houses  as  well  as  of  land  ? 

A.  No.  Houses  are  never  worth  any  more  than  it  costs  to 
reproduce  them.  Good  government  tends  to  diminish  the  cost  of 
house  building  ;  how,  then,  can  good  government  increase  the  value 
of  houses  ?  You  are  confused  by  the  fact  that  houses,  being 
attached  to  land,  seem  to  increase  in  value,  when  it  is  the  land  and 
not  the  house  that  really  increases.  It  is  the  same  mistake  that 
a  somew^hat  noted  economic  teacher,  who  advocates  protection  as 
his  specialty,  made  when  he  tried  to  show  that  there  is  an  "un- 
earned increment  "  to  houses  as  well  as  to  lands.  He  did  so  by 
instancing  a  lot  of  vacant  land  which  had  risen  in  value  from 
$5000  to  $10,000,  and  comparing  it  with  a  house  on  a  neighbor- 
ing lot  which,  as  he  said,  had  also  increased  in  value  from  $5000 
to  $10,000.  At  the  moment  when  he  wTote,  the  house  to  which  he 
referred  could  have  been  reproduced  for  $5000 ;  and  had  he  been 
capable  of  thinking  out  a  proposition  he  must  have  discovered  that 
it  was  the  lot  on  which  the  house  stood,  and  not  the  house  itself, 
'which  had  increased  in  value. 


ANSWERS  TO   QUESTIONS.  97 

O.  What  difference  would  it  make  to  tenants  whether  they  paid 
land  rent  to  the  community  or  to  private  owners  ? 

A.  When  they  pay  it  to  the  community  they  are  paying  it  in 

part  to  themselves,  and  what  others  pay  they  share  in  ;  for  they  are 

part  of  the  community.     They  are  also  exempt  from  taxes.     And 

since  there  would   be  no  inducement  to  speculate  in  land  if  rent 

went  to  the  community,  land  would  be  more  plentiful  and  rents 

would  consequently  be  lower. 

O.  Would  not  the  merchant  shift  his  land  value  tax  by  adding  it 
to  the  price  of  his  goods  ? 

A.   No.     Read  note  11, 

Q.  Would  not  the  tax  on  land  values  increase  the  value  of  land  } 
A.  No.     Read  note  11. 

0.  What  good  would  the  single  tax  do  to  the  poor  ?  and  how  ? 
A.  By  constantly  keeping  the  demand  for  labor  above  the  supply 
it  would  enable  them  to  abolish  their  poverty. 

Q.  Hasn't  every  man  who  needs  it  a  right  to  be  employed  by 
the  government } 

A.  No.  But  he  has  a  right  to  have  government  secure  him  in 
the  enjoyment  of  his  equal  right  to  the  opportunities  for  employ- 
ment that  nature  and  social  growth  supply.  When  government 
secures  him  in  that  respect,  if  he  cannot  get  work  it  is  because  (i) 
he  does  not  offer  the  kind  of  service  that  people  want ;  or  (2)  he  is 
incapable.  His  remedy,  if  he  does  not  offer  the  kind  of  service  that 
people  want,  is  either  to  make  people  see  that  they  are  mis- 
taken, or  go  to  work  at  something  else;  if  he  is  incapable,  his 
remedy  is  to  improve  himself.  In  no  case  has  he  a  right  to  govern- 
ment interference  in  his  behalf,  either  through  schemes  to  make 
\\V)rk,  or  by  bounties  or  tariffs. 

Q,  Would  working  people,  whose  savings  are  in  savings  banks 
or  insurance  companies  which  own  land  or  have  mortgages  upon 
k'lnd,  lose  by  the  shrinkage  in  land  values? 

A.  Not  if  the  companies  were    managed    intelligently.      Well 

managed  companies  would  shift  their  investments  as  they  observed 

the  persistent  decline  of  land  values.     They  would  do  it  even   as 

soon  as   conditions  appeared   which  would   naturally   cause   land 

values  to  shrink.     But  working  people  could  well  afford  to  give  all 

their  savings  for  the  permanent  employment  and  high   wages  that 

the  single  tax  would  bring  about.     It  is  not  working  people  but 

/idle  people  who  would  lose  anything  by  the  single  tax. 


98  APPENDIX. 

Q.  If  taxes  have  to  be  paid  by  labor,  what  difference  does  it  make 
to  laborers  whether  they  are  levied  in  proportion  to  land  values,  or 
otherwise  ? 

A.  When  taxes  are  levied  upon  earners  in  proportion  to  earnings, 
they  take  what  the  earners  would  otherwise  keep;  but  when  they 
are  levied  upon  land-owners  in  proportion  to  land  values,  they  take 
what  the  earners  must  in  any  event  lose. 

O.  Under  the  single  tax  could  employers  cut  wages  to  the  star- 
vation point  ? 

A;  No.  Under  the  single  tax  employers  would  be  constantly 
bidding  for  workmen,  instead  of  workmen  constantly  bidding  for 
employers  as  is  the  case  now.  It  is  the  "  oversupply  "  of  labor 
that  makes  starvation  wages  possible,  and  the  single  tax  would 
abolish  that ;  not  by  reducing  the  supply  of  labor,  the  Malthusian 
device,  but  by  allowing  the  effective  demand  for  labor  to  freely 
increase. 

O.  What  effect  would  the  single  tax  have  on  immigration  }  Would 
it  cause  an  influx  of  foreigners  from  different  nations? 

A.  If  adopted  in  one  country  of  great  natural  opportunities,  and 
not  in  others,  its  tendency  would  not  only  be  to  cause  an  influx  of 
foreigners,  but  also  to  make  their  coming  highly  desirable.  Our 
own  experience  in  the  United  States,  when  we  had  an  abundance 
of  free  land  and  were  begging  the  populations  of  the  world  to  come 
to  us,  offers  a  faint  suggestion  of  what  might  be  expected. 

Q.  Will  not  the  capitalist  be  able  under  the  single  tax  to  under- 
sell the  laborer — to  sell  goods  for  less  than  cost,  at  least  tempora- 
rily— and  thereby  force  him  to  accept  the  capitalist's  terms  ? 

A.  With  capitalists  continually  hunting  for  men  to  help  them 
fill  their  orders,  and  bidding  against  each  other  to  get  men,  as 
would  be  the  case  under  the  single  tax,  such  a  contingency  woukl 
be  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  It  is  practically  impossible. 
Nothing  short  of  a  trust,  an  absolutely  perfect  trust,  of  all  the 
owners  of  capital  the  world  over  could  produce  it.  And  even  then, 
plenty  of  very  useful  land  of  all  kinds  being  free  and  labor  products 
being  exempt  from  taxation,  all  people  who  were  outside  of  the 
trust  would  resort  co-operatively  to  the  land,  and  the  trust  would 
be  obliged  to  take  them  in  as  the  alternative  of  falling  to  pieces 
under  their  competition. 

Q.  Is  not  ownership  of  land  necessary  to  induce  its  improve- 
ment ?  Does  not  history  show  that  private  ownership  is  a  step  in 
advance  of  common  ownership? 


ANSWERS   TO   QUESTIONS.  99 

A.  No.  Private  use  was  doubtless  a  step  in  advance  of  com- 
mon use.  And  because  private  use  seems  to  us  to  have  been 
brought  about  under  the  institution  of  private  ownership,  private 
ownership  appears  to  the  superficial  to  have  been  the  real  advance. 
But  a  little  observation  and  reflection  will  remove  that  impression. 
Private  ownership  of  land  is  not  necessary  to  its  private  use.  And 
so  far  from  inducing  improvement,  private  ownership  retards  it. 
When  a  man  owns  land  he  may  accumulate  wealth  by  doing 
nothing  with  the  land,  simply  allowing  the  community  to  increase 
its  value  while  he  pays  a  merely  nominal  tax,  upon  the  plea  that  he 
gets  no  income  from  the  property.  But  when  the  possessor  has  to 
pay  the  value  of  his  land  every  year,  as  he  would  have  to  under  the 
single  tax,  and  as  ground  renters  do  now,  he  must  improve  his  hold- 
ing in  order  to  profit  by  it.  Private  possession  of  land,  without 
profit  except  from  use,  promotes  improvement ;  private  ownership, 
with  profit  regardless  of  use,  retards  improvement.  Every  city  in 
the  world,  in  its  vacant  lots,  offers  proof  of  the  statement.  It  is 
the  lots  that  are  owned,  and  not  those  that  are  held  upon  ground- 
lease,  that  remain  vacant. 

O.  Would  not  the  full  single  tax  destroy  the  basis  of  all  credit — 
land  values  ? 

A.  The  full  single  tax— one  hundred  per  cent,  of  annual  ground 
rent — would  wipe  out  land  values,  which  are  but  the  capitalization 
of  rent.  But  land  values  are  not  the  basis  of  credit.  Merchants 
do  not  prefer  mortgages  on  land  as  security  for  commercial  debts, 
unless  they  hope  to  get  the  ownership  of  the  land  through  fore- 
closure. The  true  basis  of  every  man's  credit,  from  the  consumer 
at  the  cross-roads  store  to  the  great  retail  merchant  at  the  factory 
or  the  jobbing  house,  is  honesty,  opportunity,  and  ability.  He  who 
will  pay  his  debts  if  he  can,  and  has  an  opportunity  to  earn  enough 
to  pay  them  with,  and  is  able  to  make  good  use  of  the  opportunity, 
needs  no  land  values  to  offer  as  a  basis  for  commercial  credit.  He 
has  the  ideal  basis  of  all  credit.  And  this  basis  of  credit  every 
man  could  have  if  the  single  tax  were  in  operation. 

Q.  Would  the  single  tax  benefit  the  debtor  class?     If  so,  how.^ 

A.  It  would.     By  abolishing  the  monopoly  of  opportunities  to 

work,  and  thus  enabling  debtors  to  earn  enough,  while  decently 

supporting  themselves,  to  honestly  pay  their  debts.     The  debtor 

class  deserves  sympathy,  not  because  it  is  in  debt,  but  because  it 


ICMD  APPENDIX. 

is  forced  by  existing  institutions  to  go  into  debt  in  order  to  work, 
and  is  then  so  hampered  and  harried  by  the  same  institutions  as 
to  make  orderly  repayment  impossible  and  bankruptcy  inevitable. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  the  single  tax  if  you  still  left 
railroad,  telegraph,  money,  and  other  monopolies  in  private  hands  ? 

A.  The  real  strength  of  all  monopolies  is  in  land  monopoly. 
Observe,  for  example,  the  land  holdings  of  the  inside  nng  of  such 
railroads  as  the  Southern  Pacific,  to  which  the  interests  of  the  road 
are  corruptly  made  subordinate.  Abolish  land  monopoly,  and  the 
power  of  all  the  others  will  go,  as  Sampson's  strength  went  with 
the  cutting  of  his  hair.     ,X^^ 

Q.  How  is  it  possible  to  determine  what  part  of  a  man's  product 
is  due  to  land,  and  what  part  is  due  to  labor  ? 

A.  All  products  are  due  wholly  to  the  union  of  land  and  labor. 
Labor  is  the  active  force,  land  is  the  passive  material ;  and  with- 
out both  there  can  be  no  product  at  all.  But  the  part  of  a 
man's  product  that  he  individually  earns,  as  distinguished  from 
the  part  that  he  obtains  by  virtue  of  advantageous  location, 
is  determined  by  the  law  of  rent— by  what  his  location  is  worth. 

Q.  What  is  the  value  of  a  man's  labor? 

A.  What  he  can  get  for  it  under  competition  in  a  free  market. 
There  is  no  other  test. 

O.  Is  there  no  danger  that  under  the  single  tax  scheming  men 
of  great  intellect  would  be  able  to  take  advantage  of  their  less 
intelligent  brethren,  and  by  the  competitive  system  corral  every- 
thing as  they  do  now  } 

A.  If  they  did,  it  would  not  be  by  the  competitive  system,  but 
because  the  competitive  system  was  still  imperfectly  developed. 
Competition  is  freedom,  and  such  a  thing  as  you  suggest  could  not 
be  done  where  freedom  prevailed.  I  believe  that  the  single  tax 
would  perfect  competition.  If  it  did,  and  at  any  rate  to  the  extent 
that  it  did,  every  one  would  get  what  he  earned. 

O.  Why  does  not  labor-saving  machinery  benefit  laborers  } 
A.  Suppose  labor-saving  machinery  to  be  ideally  perfect — so' 
perfect  that  no  more  labor  is  needed.  Could  that  benefit  laborers, 
so  long  as  land  was  owned  ?  Would  it  not  rather  make  land- 
owners completely  independent  of  laborers  ?  Of  course  it  would. 
Well,  the  labor-saving  machinery  that  falls  short  of  being  ideally 
perfect  has  the  same  tendency.     The  reason  that  it  does  not  benefit 


ANSWERS   TO   QUESTIONS.  lOI 

laborers  is  because   by  enhancing  the   value   of  land  it  restricts 
opportunities  for  employment. 

Q.  Under  the  single  tax  theory  what  right  have  you  to  tax  the 
value  of  "  made  land,"  like  the  Back  Bay  of  Boston  ?  Is  not  such 
land  produced  by  labor  ? 

A.  The  surface  soil  is  produced  by  labor.  But  the  foundation 
— the  bottom  of  a  bay,  a  swamp,  a  river,  or  a  hole,  is  not.  "  Made 
land  "  does  not  differ  economically  from  a  house.  Its  materials 
are  produced  from  one  place  to  another  and  adjusted  to  meet  the 
demand.  But  nature  in  the  case  of  the  "  made  land,"  as  in  that 
of  the  house,  supplies  the  materials  and  the  foundation.  The 
value  of  the  Back  Bay  of  Boston  is  chiefly  the  value  of  a  location 
— a  communal  value.  The  single  tax  would  not  take  the  value  of 
"  made  land  "  ;  it  would  take  the  value  of  the  space  where  the 
"  made  land  "  is. 

Q.  Why  does  land  tend  to  concentrate  in  the  hands  of  the  few  .^ 
A.  Because  material  progress  tends  to  increase   its  value,  and 

under  existing  conditions  valuable  things  tend  to  concentrate  in 

the  hands  of  the  few. 

O.  Does  not  the  growth  of  a  community  increase  the  value  of 
other  things  as  well  as  of  land  ?  For  example,  does  it  not  add  to 
the  value  of  the  services  of  professional  men,  or  of  any  other  busi- 
ness that  is  dependent  upon  the  presence  and  growth  of  the  com- 
munity, as  truly  as  it  does  to  the  value  of  land  ? 

A.  Granted  that  the  growth  of  a  community  primarily  tends 
to  increase  profits,  the  increased  profits  tend  in  turn  to  attract 
men  there  to  share  them.  This  intensifies  competition  and  tends  to 
lower  profits.  At  the  same  time  it  increases  demand  for  land  and 
tends  to  enhance  the  value  of  that.  It  therefore  cannot  be  said 
that  the  growth  of  a  community  finally  increases  the  value  of  other 
things  as  well  as  of  land.  In  fact  it  does  not.  Appropriate  houses 
in  cities  are  no  dearer  than  appropriate  houses  in  the  country, 
differences  in  cost  of  production  being  allowed  for.  And  although, 
some  professional  men  get  very  high  wages  in  thickly  populated 
cities,  the  average  comfort  of  professional  men  in  cities  is  no 
higher  than  in  the  country,  if  as  high.  Moreover,  even  if  labor 
values  as  well  as  land  values  were  increased  by  communal  growth, 
it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  labor  values  must  always  be  worked 
for  by  the  individual,  whereas  land  values  are  never  worked  for  by 
the  individual.     A  lawyer  may  command  enormous  fees,  but  he 


102  APPENDIX. 

gets  no  fee  at  all  unless  he  works  for  it ;  but  when  land  com- 
mands enormous  rent  the  owner  gets  it  without  doing  the  slightest 
work. 

O.  Is  there  any  land  question  in  places  where  land  is  cheap  ?  In 
Texas,  for  example,  you  can  get  land  as  cheap  as  two  dollars  an 
acre.     Is  there  a  land  question  there  ? 

A.  There  is  no  place  where  land  is  cheap  in  the  sense  implied 
by  the  question.  Land  commands  a  low  price  in  many  places, 
but  it  is  poor  land  ;  it  is  not  cheap  land.  It  is  true  that  in  Texas 
there  is  land  that  can  be  had  for  two  dollars  an  acre,  but  it  would 
yield  less  profit  to  each  unit  of  labor  and  capital  expended  upon 
it  than  land  in  New  York  City  which  costs  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  dollars  an  acre.  The  valuable  New  York  land  is  the  cheaper  of 
the  two.  The  land  question  is  the  question  in  every  place  where 
land  costs  more  than  it  is  worth  for  immediate  use. 

O.  Though  some  people  have  made  money  by  owning  land, 
isn^t  it  true  that  others  have  lost  ?  And  don't  the  losses  more 
than  off-set  the  gains  ? 

A.  Possibly.  But  that  has  no  bearing  upon  the  question. 
What  men  lose  through  investments  in  land,  the  community  does 
not  gain  ;  but  what  they  gain  the  community  does  lose.  There- 
fore, as  between  land  speculators  and  the  community,  the  losses 
cannot  be  charged  against  the  gains. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  between  speculation  in  land  and  in 
other  kinds  of  property  ? 

A.  If  all  the  products  of  the  world  were  cornered  by  speculators, 
but  land  were  free,  new  products  would  soon  appear  and  the  ill 
effects  of  the  speculation  would  quickly  pass  away.  But  if  all  the 
land  were  cornered  by  speculators,  though  everything  else  were 
free,  the  people  would  immediately  be  dependent  upon  the  specu- 
lators for  a  chance  to  live.     That  illustrates  the  difference. 

O.  How  can  it  be  possible  that  speculative  land  values  cause 
business  depressions  when,  as  any  business  man  will  tell  you,  the 
whole  item  of  land  value— whether  ground  rent  or  interest  on 
purchase  money — is  one  of  the  smallest  items  in  every  business  ? 

A.  You  overlook  the  fact  that  the  item  of  speculative  rent  is  the 

only  item  which  the  business  man  does  not  get  back  again.     The 

cost  of  his  goods,  the  expense  of  clerk  hire,  the  rent  of  his  building, 

the  wear  and  tear  of  implements,  are  all  received  back,  in  the 

.  course  of  normal  business,  in  the  prices  of  his  goods.      Even 


ANSWERS   TO   QUESTIONS.  IO3 

his  ground  rent,  to  the  extent  that  it  is  normal  (/.  e.,  what  it 
would  be  if  the  supply  of  land  were  determined  alone  by  land  in 
use,  and  not  affected  by  the  land  that  is  held  out  of  use  for  higher 
values),  comes  back  to  him  in  the  sense  that  his  aggregate  profits 
are  that  much  greater  than  they  would  be  where  ground  rent  was 
less.  But  the  extra  ground  rent  which  he  is  obliged  to  pay,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  abnormal  scarcity  of  land,  is  a  dead  weight  ;  it 
does  not  come  back  to  him.  Therefore,  even  if  infinitesimal  in 
amount,  as  compared  with  the  other  expenses  of  his  business — and 
that  is  by  no  means  admitted — it  is  the  one  expense  which  may 
break  a  thriving  business  down.  Besides,  it  is  not  alone  the  ground 
rent  paid  by  the  business  man  for  his  location  that  bears  down 
upon  his  business  prosperity  ;  the  weight  of  abnormally  high  land 
values  in  general  presses  upon  business  in  general,  and  by  obstruct- 
ing the  flow  of  trade  forces  the  weaker  business  units  to  tlie  wall. 
It  is  not  altogether  safe  to  deduce  general  economic  principles  from 
the  ledgers  of  particular  business  houses. 

Q.  Which  is  the  more  important,  land  or  money  ? 

A.  This  is  like  asking  whether  to  a  thirsty  man  water  or  a  cup 
is  the  more  important.  Land  is  a  necessity  ;  money  is  but  a  con- 
venience. The  use  of  money  is  to  facilitate  trade.  But  we  can 
live  without  trade.  And  even  to  trade,  money  is  not  indispensable. 
Trade  can  be  carried  on  by  means  of  primitive  barter  or  by  book- 
keeping, and  in  a  very  high  degree  it  is  so  carried  on.  But  we 
cannot  so  much  as  live,  either  in  solitude  or  in  society,  without  ap- 
propriate land.  "  Give  me  all  the  money  in  the  world,"  said  an 
objector  once,  "  and  you  may  have  all  the  land."  And  this  was  the 
answer:  "The  first  thing  I  should  do  would  be  to  order  you  to 
give  me  your  money  or  get  off  from  my  land." 

Q.  Would  you  let  money  escape  taxation,  and  so  favor  money 
lenders  } 

A.   It  is  a  curious  fact  that  this  question  is  rpost  popular  among 

people    who    clamor    for   cheap   money.      How    they   expect   ta 

cheapen  money  by  taxing  its  lenders  on  their  loans  is  past  finding 

out.      To  tax  money  lenders  is  to  discourage  money  lending,  and 

thereby  to  increase  interest  on  loans.     Yes,  we  should  let  money 

escape   taxation.     It    escapes  taxation  now,  which    in   itself  is  a 

politic  reason  for  exempting  it  ;  but  w^e  should  exempt  it  (by  taxing 

nothing  but  land  values)  for  the  additional  and  better  reason  that  a 


104  APPENDIX. 

man's  money  is  his  own  and  the  community  has  no  right  to  it,  while 
a  man's  land  value  is  the  community's  and  the  man  has  no  right 
to  it.  This  would  not  favor  money  lenders  in  any  invidious  sense. 
It  would  favor  both  lenders  and  borrowers  ;  borrowers  by  enabling 
them  to  borrow  on  easier  terms,  and  lenders  by  making  their  loans 
more  secure. 

Q.  Would  the  single  tax  abolish  interest  ? 

A,  I  do  not  think  so.  Interest  properly  understood  is  a  form  of 
wages,  and  so  far  from  abolishing  it,  the  single  tax,  which  would 
tend  to  increase  all  forms  of  wages,  would  tend  to  increase 
interest.  But  monopoly  profits  are  often  confounded  with  interest, 
and  by  force  of  association  have  given  to  interest  a  bad  name; 
these  would  be  minimized  if  not  wholly  abolished  by  the  single 
tax.  It  is  impossible  to  answer  this  question  intelligibly  to  every- 
one who  asks  it,  without  requiring  him  to  be  specific  ;  for  it  is 
seldom  that  two  persons  agree  as  to  what  they  mean  by  interest. 
The  Western  farmer  thinks  of  the  high  rate  that  he  pays,  partly  for 
risk,  partly  from  his  ignorance  of  the  viodus  operandi  oi  banking, 
and  partly  because  legitimate  banking  facilities  are  scarce  in  his 
•community  ;  the  Wall  Street  operator  thinks  of  the  premiums  that 
he  pays  for  currency  in  times  of  stress  to  tide  him  over  from  day 
to  day;  others  think  of "  interest  "  on  government  bonds,  and  others 
of  dividends  of  companies  with  valuable  land  rights.  None  of 
these  payments  are  really  interest,  and  the  single  tax  would  tend 
to  rid  society  of  them.  But  that  advantage  which  the  workmen 
enjoy  whose  implements  and  materials  are  already  gathered,  over 
those  who  have  yet  to  devote  time  to  gathering  implements  and 
materials,  an  advantage  which  is  expressed  in  money  and  as 
interest  upon  capital,  will  not,  I  should  think,  be  abolished  by  any- 
thing that  man  can  do.  The  value  of  such  an  advantage  is  part 
of  the  wages  of  the  labor  that  creates  it. 

Q.  Would  not  the  single  tax  take  away  the  home  place,  and  so 
tend  to  crush  out  the  home  sentiment  ? 

A.  When  the  home  place  now  becomes  valuable,  it  is  j)arted 

with. 

Q,  Yes ;  but  when  the  home  place  is  parted  with  now,  the  home 
owner  is  compensated  by  the  high  price  he  gets. 

A.  Then  your  question  does  not  turn  upon  the  home  sentiment 

but  upon  the  dollar  sentiment.    As  a  matter  of  sentiment,  the  con- 


ANSWERS   TO   QUESTIONS.  105 

dition  would  be  no  worse  in  any  case  than  now,  and  in  many  cases 
far  better  ;  as  a  matter  of  dollars,  the  question  is  one  of  justice 
and  not  of  the  home.  Under  the  single  tax  any  one  who  wanted  a 
home  could  have  it,  and  never  be  obliged  to  abandon  one  home 
for  another,  unless  such  changes  took  place  in  the  neighborhood 
as  to  make  the  place  inappropriate  for  a  home.  He  could  not 
then,  as  he  does  now,  play  dog  in  the  manger,  saying  to  the  com- 
munity, "  I  will  not  use  this  place  for  appropriate  purposes,  nor 
will  I  allow  any  one  else  to  do  so." 

Q.  Is  not  the  right  of  ownership  of  a  gold  ring  the  same  as  the 
ownership  of  a  gold  mine  ?  and  if  the  latter  is  wrong  is  not  the 
former  also  wrong  ? 

A.  If  it  be  wrong  for  you  to  own  the  spring  of  water  which  you 

and  your  fellows  use,  is  it  therefore  wrong  for  you  to  own  the 

water  that  you  lift  from  the  spring  to  drink  ."•     If  so  how  do  you 

propose  to  slake  your  thirst  ?     If  you  argue  in  reply  that  it  is  not 

wrong  for  you  to  own  the  spring,  then  how  shall  your  fellows 

slake  their   thirst  when    you  treat   them,  as   you  would  have  a 

right  to,  as  trespassers  upon  your  property.^     To  own  the  source 

of  labor  products  is  to  own  the  labor  of  others  ;  to  own  what  you 

produce  from  that  source  is  to  own  only  your  own  labor.     Nature 

furnishes  gold  mines,  but  men  fashion  gold  rings.     The  right  of 

ownership  is  radically  different. 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  men  are  equally  entitled  to  land  ?  Are  they 
not  entitled  to  it  in  proportion  to  their  use  of  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  they  are  entitled  to  it  in  proportion  to  their  use  of  it  i 
arid  it  is  this  title  that  the  single  tax  would  secure.  It  would 
allow  every  one  to  possess  as  much  land  as  he  wished,  upon  the 
sole  condition  that  if  it  has  a  value  he  shall  account  to  the  com- 
munity for  that  value  and  for  nothing  else  ;  all  that  he  produces 
from  the  land  above  its  value  being  absolutely  his,  free  even  from 
taxation.  The  single  tax  is  the  method  best  adapted  to  our  cir- 
cumstances, and  to  orderly  conditions,  for  limiting  possession  of 
land  to  its  use.  By  making  it  unprofitable  to  hold  land  except  for 
use,  or  to  hold  more  than  can  be  used  to  advantage,  it  constitutes 
every  man  his  own  judge  of  the  amount  and  the  character  of  the 
land  that  he  can  use. 

Q.  Is  it  right  that  the  owners  of  land  should  pay  all  the  taxes 
for  the  support  of  public  institutions,  while  the  owners  of  commo- 
dities go  untaxed  ? 


106  APPENDIX. 

A.  Yes.  Public  institutions  increase  the  value  of  land  but  not 
of  commodities.     Read  notes  14  and  18. 

O.  Our  city  raises  $20,000  for  fire  protection.  Is  it  fair  to  tax 
land,  which  doesn't  get  that  protection,  and  let  houses  go  free 
though  they  do  get  it  ? 

A.  Is  not  the  land  worth  more  with  your  fire  protection  than  it 

Avould  be  without  it  ?     Which  would   be  better  for  the  owners  of 

land  in  your  city,  to  pay  the  $20,000,  or  to  have  no  tire  protection  ? 

Read  notes  14  and  18. 

Q.  Rich  man  with  large  mansion ;  poor  widow  with  small 
house  on  same  sized  lot  adjoining.  The  two  pay  the  same  tax. 
Is  that  right  ? 

A.  There  is  no  reason  in  justice  why  the  community  should  not 
charge  poor  widows  as  much  for  monopolizing  valuable  land  as  it 
charges  rich  men.  In  either  case  it  confers  a  special  privilege 
and  should  be  paid  what  the  privilege  is  worth.  The  question  is 
seldom  asked  in  good  faith.  Poor  widows  who  live  on  lots  adjoin- 
ing large  mansions  are  not  numerous,  and  when  they  exist  they 
are  simply  land-grabbers.  In  our  sympathy  for  these  widows, 
let  us  not  forget  the  vast  armies  of  widows  who  not  only  do  not 
live  next  to  mansions,  but  have  no  place  in  the  whole  wide  world 
upon  which  to  rest. 

O.  If  land  and  labor  are  equally  indispensable  factors  of  produc- 
tion, why  are  they  not  equally  entitled  to  the  product  ? 

A.  The  laborer  justly  owns  his  labor,  but  the  land-owner  cannot 

justly  own  his  land.     The  question  is  not  one  of  the  relative  rights 

of  men  and  land,  but  of  men  and  men. 

O.  Should  not  the  poor  man  be  compensated  for  the  loss  of  his 
land  value  ? 

A.  No.  The  reasons  are  numerous.  Among  them  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  The  poor  man's  rights  in  tlie  community  and  in  common 
property  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  rich  man's.  The  better 
conditions  for  the  poor  man  which  the  single  tax  would  bring 
about  would  more  than  off-set  his  loss  in  land  values.  The  poor 
man  has  no  land  values  worth  speaking  of. 

O.  How  would  you  compensate  the  man  who  has  bought  a  lot 
in  order  to  make  a  home  upon  it,  but  is  not  yet  able  to  build  ? 

A.  By  letting  him,  when  he  is  ready  to  build,  have  a  better  lot 
for  nothing.  The  single  tax  would  do  this  by  discouraging  the 
■cornering  of  land   which  now  makes  all  good  lots  scarce.     When 


ANSWERS   TO    QUESTIONS.  10/ 

Sand  was  no  longer  appropriated  except  for  use,  and  that  would 
result  from  the  operation  of  the  single  tax,  there  would  be  an 
abundance  of  building  lots  to  be  had  for  the  taking,  which  would 
be  far  more  desirable  than  the  kind  to  which  men  who  cannot 
afford  to  build  homes  now  resort  when  they  buy  lots  for  a  home. 

Q.  If  the  value  of  land  be  destroyed  by  the  single  tax,  would  not 
justice  require  that  land-owners  be  compensated  ? 

A.  No.  Land  is  given  for  the  use  of  all,  and  rent  is  produced 
by  the  community  as  a  whole.  To  legally  vest  land-ov^aiership  in 
less  than  the  whole,  excluding  those  to  come  as  well  as  those  that 
are  here,  is  a  moral  crime  against  all  who  are  excluded.  There- 
fore no  government  can  make  a  perpetual  title  to  land  which  is 
or  can  become  morally  binding.  Neither  can  one  generation  vest 
the  communal  earnings  of  future  generations  in  particular  persons 
by  any  morally  valid  title,  as  they  certainly  attempt  to  do  when 
they  make  grants  of  land.  There  is  both  divine  justice  and  eco- 
nomic wisdom  in  the  command  that  "the  land  shall  not  be  sold  in 
perpetuity."  In  the  forum  of  morals  all  titles  to  land  are  sub- 
ject to  absolute  divestment  as  soon  as  the  people  decide  upon  the 
change. 

Q.  If  a  man  buys  land  in  good  faith,  under  the  laws  under  which 
■we  live,  is  he  not  entitled  to  compensation  for  his  individual  loss 
^vhen  titles  are  abolished  ? 

A.  There  is  no  sounder  principle  of  law  than  that  which,  dis- 
tinguishing the  contractual  from  the  legislative  powers  of  govern- 
ment, prescribes  that  government  cannot  tie  up  its  legislative 
powers.  Now,  land  tenures  and  taxation  are  so  clearly  matters  of 
general  public  policy  that  no  one  would  deny  that  they  are  legisla- 
tive and  not  contractual  in  character.  It  follows  that  titles  to  land, 
•and  privileges  of  more  or  less  exemption  from  taxation,  are  void- 
able at  the  pleasure  of  the  people.  And  the  possibility  of  such 
action  on  the  part  of  the  people  is  as  truly  a  part  of  every  grant  of 
land  as  if  it  were  written  expressly  in  the  body  of  the  instrument. 
Moreover,  notice  was  given  when  Henry  George  published 
"*'  Progress  and  Poverty,"  and  has  been  reiterated  often  since  in 
louder  and  louder  tones  until  the  whole  civihzed  world  has  become 
cognizant  of  it,  that  an  effort  is  in  progress  to  do  what  is  in  effect 
this  very  thing.  That  notice  is  a  moral  cloud  upon  every  title,  and 
he  who  buys  now  buys  with  notice.  It  will  not  do  for  him  when 
the  time  comes,  to  say  :  "  I  relied  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  govern- 


I08  APPENDIX. 

ment  whose  laws  told  me  I  might  buy."  He  has  notice,  and  if  he 
buys  he  buys  at  his  peril.  Men  cannot  be  allowed  to  make  bets 
that  the  effort  to  retain  land  values  for  common  use  will  fail,  and 
then  when  they  lose  their  bets  call  upon  the  people  to  compen- 
sate them  for  the  loss.  Read  the  chapter  on  "  Compensation  "  irb 
Henry  George's  "  Perplexed  Philosopher." 

Q.  If  the  ownership  of  land  is  immoral  is  it  not  the  duty  of  indi- 
viduals who  see  its  immorality  to  refrain  from  profiting  by  it  ? 

A.  No.  The  immorality  is  institutional,  not  individual.  Eveiy 
member  of  a  community  has  a  right  to  land  and  an  interest  in  the 
rent  of  land.  Under  the  single  tax  both  rights  would  be  conserved^ 
But  under  existing  social  institutions  the  only  way  of  securing 
either  is  to  own  land  and  profit  by  it.  To  refrain  from  doing  so 
would  have  no  reformatory  effect.  It  is  one  of  the  eccentricities 
of  narrow  minds  to  believe  or  profess  to  believe  that  institutional 
wrongs  and  individual  wrongs  are  upon  the  same  plane  and  must 
be  cured  in  the  same  way — by  individual  reformation.  But  indi- 
viduals cannot  change  institutions  by  refraining  from  profiting  by 
them,  any  more  than  they  could  dredge  a  creek  by  refraining  froms 
swimming  in  it.  Institutional  wrongs  must  be  remedied  by  insti- 
tutional reforms. 


aisiVBRsiTT; 


OUTLINES 

OF 

LOUIS  F.    POST'S  LECTURES. 


OUTLINES   OF    THE    ECONOMIC    LECTURES 

DELIVERED    IN    THE    PRINCIPAL    CITIES    OF 

THE    UNITED    STATES   AND    CANADA,    BY 

LOUIS    F.    POST,    OFFICIAL    LECTURER    OF   THE 

SINGLE  TAX  LEAGUE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

CONTAINING  THE  COLORED  CHARTS 

USED   BY   HIM, 

Mailed  Postpaid  on  Receipt  of  Price. 


Cloth-bound  copies,  each,     -     One  Dollar. 
Paper-bound  copies,  each,    -    Fifty  Cents. 


Address:  THE  STERLING  PUBLISHING  CO. 

io6  FULTON  STREET, 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 


BOOKS   BY   HENRY   GEORGE. 


A  Perplexed  Philosopher. 

12mo,  cloth,  $1.00;  paper,  50  cents. 

Progress  and  Poverty. 

13mo,  cloth,  1 1.00;  paper,  50  cents. 

Social  Problems. 

12mo,  cloth,  |;1.00;  paper,  50  cents. 

Protection  or  Free  Trade  ? 

12mo,  cloth,  .$1.00;  paper,  50  cents. 

The  Land  Question. 

Paper,  20  cents. 

Property  in  Land.  A.  Controversy  witli  the 
Duke  of  Argyll. 

Paper,  20  cents. 

TiTE  Condition  of  Labor.      An  Open  Letter 
to  Pope  Leo  XIIL 
12mo,  cloth,  75  cents;  paper,  30  cents. 

Property  in  Land,  The  Condition  of  Labor, 
and  The  Land  Question,  bound  together  in 
one  volume.  12mo,  cloth,  1 1.00;  paper,  50 
cents. 

Fon"  sale  hy  all  booksellers,  or  sent  postpaid  on 
receipt  of  price. 


STERLING    PUBLISHING    COM, -ANY, 

100  FULTON  t     REET,  NEW  YORK, 


Sole  publishers  in  the  U.  S. 

"  of  Henry  Georgfe's  Book*, 


'V 


^ 


0?  TH51 


^ 


3^ 


TJTSriVBBSIT 

y.       o* 


-t 


'"v-prfc 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


FEB  aa  1933 

MAR  29    1933 
''"   29  1S35 


LD  21-50m-l,'3 


/ 


y^ 


./-in /51b 
■Tt 


YB  627 1 C 


r*^  ^ 


'**:  y."1  r^ 


/ 


